|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:38 pm
Which would you take if pressed for a favourite?
Both have their merits:
d**k:
-Interesting looks at Afterificial Intelligence (and the less talked about subfield of Artificial Life)
-Great philosophical inquiry
-Interesting observations on potential enviromental and humanitarian disarsters in the near future
-Founder of cyberpunk (or even proto-cyberpunk)?
Gibson
-Very modern cyberpunk (post-cyberpunk?), able to connect with the Internet generation
-Excellent use of female characters (something d**k's work was horribly lacking)
-Able to draw from realistic sources (since so much more cyber technology is available at the authors fingertips)
-Not quite as dark as d**k, which is a positive or a negative depending on the reader
Add coments, I'm interested in what other cyberpunk readers have thought of the two. I thought of adding Shirow Masamune as a third option, but I think he's better compared to other sci-fi manga authors.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:14 am
I had to go with both. As much as I love Gibson for getting me into the genre, it was d**k that inspires me more and more as I read more of both of their works.
Oh, and Shirow is always a good choice, but more for his storytelling and detailed technology, his characters usually lack much background and story to compete with the Gibson or even d**k.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:32 pm
I had to go with both because the scope of d**k's thoughts and creations were mind-blowing. His settings and details weren't as thorough as Gibson's can be, but the ideas were epic.
As I work my way through Spook Country (I know, I know...but I just got it the other day...), I see a lot more of what Gibson said about his newer works-- In the 80's, the future was tomorrow. But now we have arrived and the future is now. I miss the old cyberpunk feel of his books, but, in a way, I'm very pleased that he's able to write beyond that scope. Given time, he could do as well as d**k.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:18 am
ARRRRGH!
This is such a hard call to make!
Neuromancer was the first book I ever read purely for pleasure (when I was Eleven, which is a LONG time ago now) So as such I'm kinda loyal to Gibson (First ones always the one you remember theory). On the other hand d**k was more prolific in his writings and has had more film adaptations made (For a film student like me, thats a major factor!) plus I've read dicks Biography (I am alive and you are dead; a journey into the mind of Phillip K. d**k, can't remember who wrote it) So I know more about him and kinda feel that whole bond thing.
Errrr, Uhhm, I'm gonna stay undecided on this but I'd probably sway towards Gibson More than d**k purely coz I'm more familiar with his works and they are a consistently good read whereas with d**k I find my attention wavers with some of his writings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:08 am
d**k was better at using science fiction literature to explore different aspects of the human psyche, as well as to critique social problems.
Gibson, on the other hand, is a better writer stylistically. He was also able expand the science fiction genre and give it a more realistic and harsh view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
