I've tried to read it about 5 times over the last 20 years or so. Never made it past the first third or so of the book. Something about the way it is written is just so unappealing to me that I'd rather give up than finish. One of these days I might just read the synopsis.
I've seen that sentiment expressed elsewhere, it seems some people just aren't compatible with it.
Likewise I can't get through Pat Cadigan's 'Synners' which I think is a Nebula award winner - the world seems like it _should_ be interesting enough but it just doesn't grip me at all... I must have tried about ten times now and I just end up either leaving it for something else or leafing aimlessly through the pages trying to jump ahead to a more 'engaging' part and not finding anything
I found the ideas in Neuromancer to be, at the time, revolutionary. Going back to it, I thought that it read like a kids book. Naive and cludgy - like a Drizzt D&D book.
Neal Stephenson is I think a better writer, while also moving the genre and sci-fi concepts forward. I highly recommend "The Diamond Age" for people that couldn't make it through Neuromancer.
The writing in Neuromancer is a lot less polished than in the second two books, Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive, and I understand your point.
I like Stephenson but I don't know that you can directly compare, while they're both 'Cyberpunk' authors to an extent Stephenson's work is wildly different, there's a lot more 'education' in Stephenson whereas Gibson is pure exposition. Stephenson can also be a bit (very) preachy. I've read the Gibson books many many times and but the Stephenson ones... well, the second time I went through 'Snow Crash' I was already skipping massively, and The Diamond Age... once you've read it, you've read it.
This is going to sound incredibly judgemental but to me, Gibson writes the future, Stephenson the past.
If all you've read is Neuromancer I'd agree. What other Gibson works have you read?
