Remember when you took Modern European History in school and the textbook barely made it up to WWI? I remember thinking it was pretty stupid since, at that time, WWII was still in all the papers or was recent enough to still shape modern history.
The same thing happened when I studied Modern Literature at the university (although I think we got a lot closer to WWII in Lit) but still, the whole world was reading Grace Metalious and we were studying J. Alfred Prufrock. I remember being told that it was too dangerous to study an author that was still alive: they might write another book and blow your whole thesis.
Interesting, it is also too dangerous for an author to use something from popular contemporary culture as a subject for fiction lest the story might turn into an embarrassing farce laughed at by many readers.
Continue reading “Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well.”
I just don’t relate to the work of William Gibson. I tried and unlike my aborted experiment with Anne Rice, I didn’t hate Gibson’s writing … it just didn’t seem to be worth spending my time reading. This puzzles me: how different is Gibson from some of the Bizarro Fiction I read and enjoy?
Gibson’s work in the Sprawl Trilogy revolves around and exists in a future reality where the geopolitical world as we know it has changed drastically and where alternate worlds are available in what is now commonly called Cyberspace. Do you think that my ho-hum reaction to Gibson is the result of the contemporary reality that new and exciting ideas become over-used and tedious in a shorter and shorter time? Shoot, I couldn’t even watch those Matrix movies: they didn’t hold my interest.
Why does Science Fiction seem so boring when objectively it would seem that Science Fiction would be stimulating and thought provoking? For me it’s like Alex in A Clockwork Orange, strapped to a chair with my eyes propped open except I’m being forced to watch the long version of Dune over and over again.
Continue reading “William Gibson and Cyberspace”