欧宝娱乐

Yeah, Gibson is cool, no doubt. A shame he's not more prolific.

AS for tools, Bradbury, a whiz on the typewriter, once said that he could not believe that someone could not retype a page (eschewing the modern word processor) - only goes to show how feeble we wordsmith-wanna-be's can be.

I'll close by offering a request, Keely.

Isn't it time by now for you to reread The Giver, and support your critique with a literary analysis?

Jim wrote: "Isn't it time by now for you to reread The Giver, and support your critique with a literary analysis? "

I've thought about it, but with the lack of literary arguments in defense of it, it seems a rather pointless exercise to wade through it again to create a more solid defense against an offense that isn't there.

Besides, if commentators aren't even responding to the basic arguments, I have no reason to think that they will respond to a longer, more in-depth textual analysis. There is a point when discussion requires a return to the text, but despite the sheer volume of comments on that thread, the discussion has not reached that point.

It's true that when a work gets traction - perennially sells well, get's taught regularly in school, wins awards, gets attention in political magazines (Reason in Lowry's case), that the "offense isn't there".

The Matrix is an example (off the top of my head) that gets/got popular adulation - which to me is superficial and fatally flawed by an early premise - namely that an advanced civilization would render all (most?) humans comatose for the purpose of their heat production and keep them passive by a mass video-game-delusion - that really blew it for me.

Back to Lowry/The Giver:


Actually there is "an offense".

I recall providing links to positive literary criticism - both free and inexpensive - teaching guides the gave extensive treatment to the novel.

I have always suspected that you plain didn't like the novel - which if fair enough. But, critics with your rhetorical power and energy (man, what energy) would critique with yet more power by adding analysis.

Not that you would enjoy the exercise - and you admitted as much once in the other thread.

Had I been in your shoes, weathering the onslaught, I'd have given at least a cursory analysis - raise the case from opinion to opinion with evidence.

Jim wrote: "that an advanced civilization would render all (most?) humans comatose for the purpose of their heat production and keep them passive by a mass video-game-delusion - that really blew it for me. "

The original concept was that Neo would discover that the comatose humans were actually the processing power behind the matrix, not the energy source. The Wachowskis wanted to play with the idea that 'humanity creates its own prison', which is why the agents are able to take over different people temporarily. Unfortunately, the film execs thought audiences would find that too confusing, so it was switched to 'energy source' so that the lowest common denominator could follow the plot.

"I recall providing links to positive literary criticism - both free and inexpensive - teaching guides the gave extensive treatment to the novel."

I did look a bit at those sites, but they were pretty basic, low-level analysis, the sort of thing one expects from sparknotes: mainly, plot summaries and explanations of what the main points are. Perhaps if you found specific arguments in them that I should consider, you could present them, yourself.

I don't think it's fair to expect me to sift through articles or the book just to refute myself. I'm willing to go to the book and articles, but first I'd need to see some good evidence that I missed something important bearing reconsideration.

I've shown myself willing to discuss the book and the issues that surround it with interested parties, but I don't consider it entertaining to delve into a book I find to be one-sided and poorly-written without good reason.

"I have always suspected that you plain didn't like the novel . . ."

I don't think there is such a thing as 'simply liking or disliking a book', there are always reasons why we like or dislike things, and my reviews are attempts to search out those reasons. If I were satisfied with simply liking or disliking a book, I wouldn't have bothered writing an analytical review in the first place, not to mention defending it.

I'm also not sure why you want a discussion which is already overly long and redundant to spill out into another review, but such is the organic nature of the internet.

"critics with your rhetorical power and energy (man, what energy) would critique with yet more power by adding analysis."

If commentators addressed or responded to my arguments, I'd feel a need to support them and tighten them up as my errors and omissions were brought to light. For now, my review has been more than equal to the attacks made on it.

However, I feel I should have a second look through the articles you mentioned to keep me from becoming complacent. I'll let you know if I find anything.

Let's dispense with other commentators - including my own bad faith comments - for which I apologized (And apologize again).

Let me know which of the study guides you find - that are worthy.

For now I'm going run with my hazy memory.

I have a poor memory for plot, which has advantages in that rereads and re-views of films are almost new to me.

"a book I find to be one-sided and poorly-written without good reason."

The Giver is indeed one-sided - sides with liberal political systems that value autonomy.

Brave New World was one-sided in the same way - more extreme in that the fetus' future role was determined in the tank.

1984 - one-sided as well - more stark, more like Soviet Russia, and not set in the future as BNW.

Rand had a early dystopia novel - too long ago for me to recall much - but one-sided as well I suspect, based on her later longer works.

Lowry was sneaky - at first showing a bland, harmonious society (but foreshadowing some awful stuff - awful to classical liberals, near-anarchists like me) - and gradually peeling away layers to uncover the ugliness. A simple parable - for juveniles remember - and one I approve of - since I regard the state as potentially if not inherently predatory or possibly parasitic - even if the parasitism is couched in good intentions.

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions" - one of my favorites

What other sides would you have Lowry present?

Some of the cyber geeks will find this a strange discussion - The Giver under Neuromancer - too bad for them, I say .

Jim wrote: "Let's dispense with other commentators"

Fresh start it is.

"Brave New World was one-sided in the same way . . .

1984 - one-sided as well . . .

What other sides would you have Lowry present?"

Except that neither of those works are one-sided in the way Lowry's is. Certainly, both of them reveal something about the authors' philosophies, but unlike Lowry, both Huxley and Orwell go out of their way to explore the psychology of the side they are critiquing.

We get extended tete-a-tetes with authorities in both books so that we, as readers, can understand not only how these societies came about, but what they represent and how they persist. Lowry is content to let her political realm be distant and shadowy, a representation of evil, though as you say, evil with a bland, harmonious face.

Eventually, she clues us in to the real danger, but not through an understanding of what her society is supposed to represent or how it evolved from the human mind, instead, we get an extreme instance of systematized child-killing, and without any explanation of why her culture came to consider such a thing necessary.

As I said in my original review, "Lowry doesn't realize that the best way to critique Fascism or Communism is not to present it as 'evil', but to simply present it as it was". She could have (and should have) presented another side: the fact that pure human freedom is not the be-all and end-all of people or society.

There is a reason that fascist and socialist societies come into existence, and if Lowry is unable to show us that reason, she has no business attempting to write in the dystopian vein. Condemning a behavior without understanding the psychological reasons behind it is an act of fundamental ignorance.

Telling us to fear a faceless enemy is not the method of a good, thoughtful writer. We should be wary of things because we understand the risks involved, not because they are represented in an extreme, symbolic way.

"A simple parable - for juveniles remember - and one I approve of - since I regard the state as potentially if not inherently predatory or possibly parasitic - even if the parasitism is couched in good intentions."

The question of whether Lowry is right about freedom or socialism is not the central argument here. Even if we agree with her conclusions, she should be condemned for the way she presents them.

"Some of the cyber geeks will find this a strange discussion - The Giver under Neuromancer . . ."

Which is why I should probably delete this exchange after we've hashed it out, but if you want to continue it under the original review or in private messages, I would certainly be amenable.

NOOOOOO!

But I want to jump in here and ask why The Matrix is being paraded as a forerunner when it clearly plagiarises others? As in Plato, Ellison, Dick and for films - Dark City and a Japanese film (don't blast me, there's no way I have a snow-ball's chance in some place very hot of remembering which anime it is) were totally lifted. The Waches were...well, another word that sounds similar.

I do love Dark City. Kelly wouldn't believe me when I suggested the Matrix cribbed from it But all artists steal, particularly good ones, so I don't hold that against The Matrix.

Then again, even if they were the mythical 'true works of human originality' idealized by the discerning, it wouldn't save the second and third films.

The only thing the Matrix did (besides crib, and badly) was introduce that sh-sh-sh-shot effect. Oh, and ok. The kung-fu stunts were so over-the-top that they were actually mildly amusing. But Kung Fu Panda beats that anyday.

Someone commented somewhere the other day that Blade Runner came from the Necromancer. Gob-smacked. So who was copying who?

Heh, Blade Runner from Neuromancer, that's a hoot, innit?

To the best of my knowledge, the seed of Blade Runner was cooked up by a couple of guys working on Jodorowsky's abortive attempt to film 'Dune' in Europe in the late seventies.

Two of the creative folks he hired, Dan O'Bannon (screenwriter of 'Alien') and Jean Giraud (or 'Moebius', pre-eminent Franco-Belgian comic artist) got together and did a short comic combining Sci Fi and Hard-Boiled. It's a pretty good read; short, but you can see the roots of the film there.

I know there's a lot of Dick in it, too, just so you know I'm not entirely ig'nant.

Oh, and check out some of the videos of Trumbull explaining how some of the FX shots for the film were done.

Also, the Bradbury Building, which was the setting for the film's climax, was also the setting for an Ellison-penned episode of 'The Outer Limits' called 'The Demon With a Glass Hand', which was the inspiration for 'The Terminator'.

Keely,

I agree we ought to take this private. Send email to my "spam" account (with "bot-proof" "encryption"):

j*a/h*n/g*h/a/l*t (aattt) yahoo (daught) com

(took me a long time to find a suitable anonymous moniker to hide behind)

You do know there is an internal pm system on goodreads, right?

The Kung Fu stunts are what make the Matrix tolerable - and the actor who plays Smith - a great villain - same guy who played Elrond in Lord of the Rings.

It will never happen, but I'd love to see even a low-budget treatment of Neuromancer - near-future SF for grownups. Count Zero would be a good candidate for an SF film as well.

Blade Runner - now there's a grownup SF film - in the "pure" sense of SF. And the happy ending tacked on to the original theatrical release by nervous suits was even tolerable given how brilliant the film was.

So much so-called "sci-fi" is horror dressed up in an SF setting.

A hoot, indeed. I imagine Gibson cringes when people try to connect his stuff to The Matrix.

Private Messaging? OK, how do you do it?

Good Reads is only an occasional stop for me, I'll never figure half of the cool stuff on it.

BTW, it's way past my bedtime here in Alaska (2320). You're quite the night owl, replying at 3AM.

Only reason I'm up this late is Aussie Open matches on ESPN2.

I'll check back in tomorrow.

Just a bit of insomnia, I'm usually better. I've been enjoying the Open, too.

If you click on my portrait, it will take you to my profile, and under my personal info, there's a link to 'send message'. Then in the upper right hand corner, there's another link to 'inbox', which is where messages will show up, both those you have sent and received. Hope that helps.

Back to Gibson:

Unfortunately, the film execs thought audiences would find that too confusing, so it was switched to 'energy source' so that the lowest common denominator could follow the plot.

I see on "free" IMDB, that a film is "under development".

I hope Gibson will exert some grownup control over it. Better not to make the movie than to make it for 13-yr-olds.

(said another way, who needs another Dune? - the best part about that was the snarks that the late Siskel and the still kicking Ebert made while reviewing that awful movie)

BTW, is the Dune mini-series worth the time?

The European Dune would have been before the David Lynch version. I never saw the miniseries, I heard it was accurate and well-acted but that they ran out of money on the FX budget so some of the shots are pretty blatant greenscreen.

I see on "free" IMDB, that a film is "under development".

Are you talking about the new Matrix, Dune, or Neuromancer film in the works? You quote me about the Matrix, suggest we don't need a new Dune, then say you hope Gibson has executive control so I'm a bit confused.

New Neuromancer film.

Gibson would have little to say about the Matrix or Dune

nicht wahr?

I know what a fricken lozenge is...
But whats a cough drop?

Is that an Americanism? Hard to keep track of them all.

Just don't try to watch Johnny Mnemonic. Ever.

It's off topic to this review, but as I fairly recently read Johnny Mnemonic (in fact, the entire collection Burning Chrome) but haven't watched the film, I found this side remark interesting. The reason is that the actual short story doesn't actually have much of, well, story. It is very obviously an early exercise in the world building that would become the setting of the Sprawl trilogy (there is even one character in common), but the actual plot is entirely linear and could probably be accurately summarised in one short line. As a read it is interesting for someone who enjoyed Neuromancer and wants to see how it was built, but otherwise entirely forgettable. It does give plenty of world-building fodder though, so one might imagine that a creative screen writer could have fleshed it out into something quite spectacular.

I didn't find Burning Chrome among your books, but it is a rather short collection of short stories and it would be interesting to know what you think of it. (Which reminds me that it is one of several reviews I should try to take the time to write up myself.)

And yes, cough drop is probably an Americanism.

Some recent activity on IMDB boards suggest that they will more forward on a Neuromancer film (Neeson and Wahlberg supposedly offered roles).




With some "name" actors, they will probably have a real budget - not that a healthy budget will assure quality - the opposite is at least as likely.

See Gattaca - a few neat sets, some slightly odd futuristic-looking cars, some resonably credible props and costumes, with a first rate story/screenplay.

The audio FX sold the setting for a true hard SF film.

(so unusual)

Other News on Neuromancer (film):



"the film remains an independent production with a budget of just $60m (拢39m). While a little more cash might not have gone amiss, the US director of Cube and Splice will find it easier to keep control of his movie if he's not spending big studio greenbacks."

Wow, I guess 60-million USD isn't "big" these days. I regard this as good news. Let the 13-25 crowd get their FX jollies everywhere else and leave grownup drama to the rest of us.

Nothing is "grownup" if Neuromancer isn't.

"Nothing is "grownup" if Neuromancer isn't."

Well, Neuromancer's pretty flashy and 'cool', not exactly an Ibsen play in terms of maturity, but that doesn't mean I like it any less. As far as the movie goes, it might be hard for it to work well, since so many of the things predicted in the book have come true, it probably wouldn't seem remarkable to a lot of viewers, especially after half of sci fi films have already ripped ideas from it.

It can be hard to go back to those big inspirational works and understand how groundbreaking they were when everyone afterwords sat down and copied their design.

not exactly an Ibsen play in terms of maturity

Why is that? Because it is "flashy" with it's use if technology to create a "cool" future? Or because Ibsen deals with the "classically serious" themes of literature (relationships etc.) in a realistic contemporary setting? Just for the sake of it, I might play devil's advocate and argue that the themes explored by Gibson are no less mature and just as deeply about human nature: what does, or, more importantly, doesn't, technology change about humans? These issues are no less deep or mature than the mechanism of the breakdown of a marriage.

Hey Keely,

I don't know Ibsen, but my dim recollection is that all of Gibson's near-future novels are deadly serious - if not "mature".

As for whether Neuromancer predicted changes in our world since it's 1984 rollout, I'll throw out a couple observations:

1) Using Gattaca (again) as an example - very little in that very fine film would be regarded as "remarkable" - with the exception that it predicts deep space exploration in the near future (call that prediction "hopeful").

Not knowing what the VHS, DVD, and rental receipts amounted to, I suppose the film lost money. $36-million to produce, (XX to promote?) domestic receipts of $12-million, unstated (nonexistent?) foreign box-office.

If I were to invest money in a film - with the expectation of making money - I'd shy away from Neuromancer.

2) As for setting, I have blurred together various Gibson novels. There are still some aspects of N's setting which have not come to pass:

The Sprawl, for one. Did Gibson not posit a huge climate-controlled megalopolis?

The idea of "jacking" into the net as an ultra virtual reality (VR) experience - the net as "construct".

Ultra VR without jacking (though perhaps this was from a later novel).

An enhanced degree of autonomy and power for large corporations (current conspiracy theories notwithstanding).

Commercial ballistic transport - achievable today, but not available.

The medicine in Neuromancer is still pretty remarkable.

Most post-N SF films have scared me off with their promotion, so I can't confidently comment on which of Gibson's ideas have been borrowed - but so what if they have been? Story counts the most - and I pray that the Neuromancer team won't stoop to gratuitous stupidity.

"Why is that? Because it is "flashy" with it's use if technology to create a "cool" future?"

Yeah, and the whole noir undertone--the heavily stylized way he tells the story. I was comparing it to Ibsen in the sense that Ibsen is giving us bottom-up stories where we start with character psychology and conflict and the plot builds from there, instead of a lot of genre works where we start with concept and appearance and then move down to the characters.

The exploration of what technology changes about humanity can be a very mature exploration of psychology, but in Gibson, a lot of the changes he posits are the cool, interesting ones instead of the small, vital, everyday shifts that are less exciting in a firefight.

I'm not saying Gibson's approach is childish, I just thought the statement 'nothing is grownup if Neurmancer isn't' was a bit strong, since I'm not sure flashy noir tech adventures are the mature apex of the complex exploration of the human experience.

Jim said: "Story counts the most - and I pray that the Neuromancer team won't stoop to gratuitous stupidity."

Yeah, in a story like this, the script and actors will definitely be of utmost importance to making a movie work.

I'm not sure flashy noir tech adventures are the mature apex of the complex exploration of the human experience.

No argument from me on this. Gibson is not one of those characterization, interior-focused authors. His genius emerged from the fabulous settings he extrapolated from the present - with their relatively macro/external effects on the characters.



the script and actors will definitely be of utmost importance

I'm pretty selective about film and wonder, what examples are there of top-notch writing and mediocre acting?

While The Matrix certainly owes a LOT to Neuromancer, for me, the closest movie to Neuromancer was Strange Days. On the other hand, I wonder if Neuromancer was in any way influenced by Brainstorm :P

Unfortunately I have already seen Johnny Mnemonic. Worst mistake of my life.

I just got this book a few days ago. Reading your review was a very nice introduction to the book.

isn't it ironic he wrote THIS novel on a typewriter?:)
I do agree there is something 'cool' about it....and I'm not sure how to define this coolness factor.

Johnny Mnemonic? Come on, it wasn't that bad.

Original or not, I'll take a good story whenever I can get it. Thanks for the awesome review.

'every time he types it, you are going to imagine a cough drop flying serenely by,'
eheh, funny!

Thanks for the brief note on lozenge! I was myself befuddled with the image of throat lozenges! Haha...
Please keep sprinkling your reviews with tidbits of information - much appreciated :-D

Johnny Mnemonic is a gold mine of cyberpunk camp value a la Running Man or Escape From New York. Not everything good is well made, and it鈥檚 better for it. I鈥檓 sure you鈥檝e seen Mike Judge鈥檚 Idiocracy

Wow this review just convinced me to read the book!