In message <[log in to unmask]>, Arthur
Hlavaty <[log in to unmask]> writes
>On Wed, 15 May 1996, Nir Yaniv wrote:
>
>> Liz Holliday wrote:
>>
>> > > I had really high hopes when I began reading "Neuromancer", alas, I
>> > >was severely disappointed. Gibson merely took several well known
>> > >ingredients and mixed them in a not-too-unique a way. I really fail
>> > >to see the big change, as to my opinion both PKD and John Brunner did
>> > >the same thing, somewhat better, more than twenty years ago.
>> > And let's not forget Delany and Tiptree and Cordwainer Smith...
>> And Bester and...
>> I actually discussed that with Brian Aldiss today (he's visiting
>> Israel, we're trying to establish an Israeli SF&F Society here, just
>> had our first conference and he was the guest of honor). He agreed
>> with me that all those authors we mentioned did the thing before
>> Gibson (he actually had to remind me of Bester, for which I'm
>> eternally ashamed), but claimed that still Gibson put all these
>> ingredients together in a rather original and unique way. I thought
>> otherwise and gleefully argued until it was time to say goodbye...
>> I'd call it a draw. What do you (people) out there think?
>>
>
>I'm with Aldiss on this one. There's no such thing as a really original
>work, and Gibson put the old ingredients together in a particularly
>interesting new way. Whether it was worth building a whole movement on is
>another question....
I've no doubt Gibson _crystalised_ something, I just hate it when people
forget that there were also forerunners - he didn't _just_ pull it out
of thin air; and even if he wasn't aware of all these other people,
we're in danger of losing some great work if we ignore these other folk
because 'Gibson invented cyberpunk'.
Liz Holliday
----------------------
[log in to unmask]
Q: What do you get if you cross Star Trek with Dune?
A: Spice, the final frontier
|