I don't know how I feel about this book. I've been trying to delve into sci-fi lately to garner some inspiration for my own project and I was told that this was one of the most notable sci-fi books of the century and a good starting place. On one hand, Gibson's descriptiveness and way with technological monikers is unrivaled. Its almost mind-blowing how pieced together and convincing everything is. Neuromancer's world is so fully-realized and believable you almost forget its not hard science fiction. My only gripes are with the continuous style in which Gibson writes - it's almost too A.D.D. for me at times. I feel as if his style of writing was different, I'd be enjoying this a lot more than I am, but at the same time I can appreciate the style for what it is. It's not bad, I just don't prefer it. Also, the novel is devoid of anything resembling emotion or philosophy, two things that I generally look for in my literature, but it comes with the territory I guess (Although 1984 does a great job splicing these elements into science-fiction). No doubt an impressive book, but a little dry for my tastes.
"Night City was like a deranged experiment in social Darwinism, designed by a bored researcher who kept one thumb permanently on the fast-forward button. Stop hustling and you sank without a trace, but move a little too swiftly and you'd break the fragile surface tension of the black market; either way, you were gone, with nothing left of you but some vague memory in the mind of a fixture like Ratz, though heart or lungs or kidneys might survive in the service of some stranger with New Yen for the clinic tanks."