I'm reading the Sprawl Trilogy from a writer's perspective--I'm trying to figure out Gibson's style. I've finished book 2 "Count Zero" and I think I can better analyze it now. . .
Imagine Hemingway writing SF. That might be a decent approximation to what Gibson is doing. Minimalist. Hemingway could write the bare minimum describing a cloudless sky in a hot desert in a way that would make you imagine a hawk screeching overhead without him actually writing it. That is a mastery of the art. The problem is when you try to do that with science fiction you leave the reader high and dry. We KNOW about skies, deserts, and the hawk not written about but we've never ventured into Gibson's "matrix" or his imagined world of internet voodoo gods so. . .how the hell is a reader supposed to fill in the blanks Hemingway-style?
My take is that science fiction, more than just about any other genera, demands description especially when the writer takes you on a ride to completely uncharted territories--which is exactly the case when you're writing about cyberspace. Gibson at once leaves too much to the imagination but demands that you remember the most inconsequential detail barely mentioned 60 pages earlier for the impending plot twist to make sense. Contrast this style with somebody from the opposite end of the spectrum, like Dan Simmons.
While Gibson leaves nearly the entire burgeoning internet to your imagination Simmons spends tens of pages describing the worlds of "Hyperion" that you've never been to and have never seen. I prefer Simmons' style to Gibson in the realm of science fiction. I come here to see things I've never seen before, not to be told "go figure it out for yourself." Heck, I was doing that anyway before I picked up the Sprawl Trilogy.
So Count Zero is a good read even though it is not my style. Maybe it's yours. You decide.
Bobby Newmark, a.k.a. Count Zero comes off appropriately like a teenage little puke. His character arc is. . .developed, I suppose. He's hired for his hacking "cowboy" expertise and his big scene amounts almost to just being in the right place at the right time (again with the minimalist approach). I was hoping for a little more action.
Turner is a good bad ass--a real bounty hunter/rogue Special Forces/007 type. He kicks ass when required and ends the book as just a tiny bit of a softie. SPOILER ALERT! He's a daddy and you're supposed to remember waaaaaay back 120 pages earlier he had a one night stand (you figure his character has had many, but this isn't that kind of book) with a third tier character who steps on the stage, fools around, and then leaves. Then at the end of the book in the epilogue he’s a daddy. The End. Huh? Yeah. Good night.
I mean the plot is decent, the characters aren't exactly cardboard cutouts. They live and breathe somewhat. And the story travels along. I suppose Gibson's greatness is in his ability to make you anticipate. . .something. The internet is apparently crawling with voodoo gods from the union of Neuromancer and Wintermute from the previous book but you barely see them. In fact, they're really only hinted at. As a reader, wouldn't you really want to get into what the hell these internet voodoo gods are? How they act? Get under their skin? I was hoping to at least meet them man-to-cybergod. Well, you won't get much of that here.
Gibson is all anticipation and not so much satisfaction. All tease and really little pay off.
You'll like Gibson if you like to be teased but without much fulfillment. He's a master at that. So, yeah, he has a following. And massive awards.