edwino - thanks, and your last post makes a lot of sense, both on Stephenson and Gibson.
A few top-of-mind thoughts:
- I guess, with Gibson, I find myself somewhat subliminally irked at the gravity of his writing - hence, my small mock in my last post (“she walked down the alley. alone. in the rain.”) which is normally used to mock Hemingway. The thing about Hemingway - when he was writing well (his misses are huge) - that gravity took the underlying points of his writing - about relationships, about war, about sense of self in relationships, war and life - to whole new levels. That hardboiled style enabled us - in a new and innovative shorthand - to fill in our blanks and complete the sense of the lead character in our minds, bonding us to the character.
The biggest problem with that style is that, if just used as a style, with no underlying important points to make, it becomes an obvious mockery. It’s the difference between, say, Jackson Pollack’s splatter art and someone designing splatter gift-wrap paper - one says something profound (to me) the other looks pretty in turquoise and pink (or not, as the case may be). The question, therefore, is: Is Gibson a great practitioner of the hardboiled style, who sometimes gets it tied to a meaningful set of points - like Neuromancer and some of Burning Chrome - or is he just someone who can speak in that voice, but has little to say, IMHO, like in Pattern Recognition. When does fashion photography cross over and become art? I ask because it feels like PR is more fashion photography - written in a voice that requires strong technical skills to do, and flirts with using art-style language to make points, but ultimately is more of a showcase for stuff than an artistic statement.
I know, I know - if there was ever a time to invoke Justice Stewart’s definition of obscenity, this is it (“I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”). I absolutely respect a person’s right to look at Gibson’s work and PR in specific as more than “fashion photography.” This is just my opinion.
As for Stephenson - well, see, I may be tying myself up in conversational knots, but here goes: I have a few close friends where the whole basis of our friendship is the wide-ranging nature of our conversations. They translate Latin, when to the Monterery Pop Festival, hang out with senior U.N. officials, produce records for the Cure and David Byrne - I am pleased to report they are an eclectic bunch. The point is that we - when the stars are in alignment, we have time and plenty of wine - embark on these meandering discussions about all sorts of stuff. We drop topics, conclude a minor few, mix n’ match - the whole bit. I read Stephenson to get that same feeling - a big, brawling commentary that moves from topic to topic with intelligence and, just as important, fun. I am kinda amazed that he keeps his plots and characters as coherent as he does. I in no way read his stuff the way I read, say, hard sci-fi, which is all about a credible work that is populated with (often only 2 dimensional, unfortunately) characters who are put in motion to comment on our world in a metaphorical way.
Stephenson’s stuff is in a funny place - if he was more directed in clarifying his philosophical points, it would be considered literature (and of course, more than most any other “sci-fi” author - along with Gibson - his stuff is commented on by lit crits), and if it was more plot-driven, would be classic hard sci-fi. If it was less tied to hard-fact interesting stuff, it would be more like those rambling authors who drive me nuts, like Tom Robbins (“Even Cowgirls get the Blues,” “Jitterbug Perfume”) or even Thomas Pynchon - the king of actively working post modern lit.
Bottom line? I personally find Stephenson satisfying given what I am looking to get out of his work - a ton of substance told in a rollicking, fun and engaging way, whereas Gibson I find to be style over substance.
My $.02. YMMV.
