The thing that really interests me about Neuromancer, by William Gibson, is the way Gibson redefines the relationship between technology and nature. As we discussed in class, this novel sets a tone from the beginning where technology is used to define nature instead of the other way around, in language, description, and narrative. Many authors provide a physical description of their characters to match or be similar to aspects of the character’s personality, but Gibson takes this idea a step further with his futuristic take on physical appearance and its new partnership with technology. I find it really interesting that the Modern’s suits change colors like a hologram, reflecting their personalities as being extremely multi-faceted and susceptible to passing trends and fads. They are only looking out for themselves and their suits show that sentiment by projecting alternative visuals to different people at certain times or angles. Another example, Molly, has a quick, strong, and sharp personality, clearly represented by the piercing blades that come out of her fingers. She is also a little vulnerable and strives to stay in control, which is parallel to her use of glasses that are surgically encased in her head.
One aspect of this novel that interests me is its attempt to distance itself as far away from the current reality as possible, yet it still projects some age-old associations. Even with its changed, advanced environment through technology, some associations remain intact and even encouraged throughout the book. For example, religion and terrorism are inevitably linked. From the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to 9/11, terrorism has been historically linked to religion in our reality. In Neuromancer, the Moderns use the cover of a militant Christian sect to scapegoat the chaos that takes place in Sense/Net. Also, this novel is supposed to be set years and years in the future, yet the middle eastern treatment and view towards women is the same or similar as it is currently and historically. This is exemplified when the Armenian is surprised that Case and the Finn have informed Molly about their plan of action and also his shock of her high involvement in the mission. I would think that in a world where the written language has become obsolete, these old associations would disintegrate or at least become passé.
With his inclusion of these associations, was Gibson just including certain ideas that would make his far-out novel become more relatable to the current reader, or do you think that he meant something else by including these little asides? If Gibson didn’t mean anything by it and you think my question is irrelevant, my other question would be: how do you think accepted trends, social norms, or historical associations would break down with this sort of advancement in technology? Would our society change dramatically with the drastic change in the way we relate to each other and with the giant leap in technological creation? What ideologies or accepted beliefs would break down and which ones would persist? It’s impossible to tell, but interesting to think about. What’s strong enough to last?
I think Gibson does this intentionally. By maintaining certain stereotypes, he suggests that some things don't change even in the face of global technological advancement. The Armenian, Terzibashjian, claims that "[i]n Turkey, women are still women," bound by the same limits on their rights and opportunities. I think Gibson also shows that despite mass communication and worldwide awareness of cultures, prejudiced or narrow-minded ideas can persist.
ReplyDeleteI believe that some themes are unavoidable because of the natural tendency of human relations. I feel that we as humans are utterly bound, to some extent, by our impulses, and that is strongly conveyed by our tendency to repeat history despite education and books and movies which echo our humanity.
ReplyDeleteI think that some things, especially regarding gender relations, will never be "equalized." Religion has been and always will be a viable scapegoat for terrorism, and people will always treat men and women ever so slightly differently. However, as has been pointed out, the continued existence of these social concepts might be because of the fact that certain cultures are somewhat technophobic and will not necessarily be on the same level of social freedom we are. Just because the Japanese and Americans are jetsetting around in digital environments doesn't mean tribes in Africa have stopped slaughtering one another and treating women like pieces of meat.
ReplyDeleteI do not think your first question is irrelevant, so that's the one I'll attempt (the second one is just too hard). I think Gibson's inclusion of familiar names, places, and concepts serves a very important, very deliberate purpose... besides 'slowing things down' and giving the reader some much-appreciated context (most of the novel moves very quickly through unfamiliar territory), the references to familiar issues like interreligious violence and chauvinism are there to reinforce the idea that technology can't fix everything. Today, it's often claimed that, what with advances in physics, chemistry, medical science, and evolutionary theory, people no longer have any reason to believe certain things about God or the natural order -- like that God permits violence in the name of the one true creed, or that women are naturally inferior to men. But such claims miss the point entirely, because people DO believe these things, even in spite of better alternatives. Indeed, competition from other belief systems -- mostly, those accessible via the Internet -- often does nothing but intensify the devotion of fanatics to their beliefs, as archaic worldviews can serve as attractive refuges for people who are uncomfortable with change and uncertainty. This is certainly true of groups like al-Qaeda. So while technology can hypothetically enhance our *potential* for peace and understanding, it can't do anything beyond that. How we use it -- and to what ends -- is up to us.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the reason Gibson put those similarities with our society in his book is to make it relatable to people in "our time" reading the book. I also think, however, that having those similarities in there is Gibson's way of saying that certain institutions, especially culturally, are apt to stay the same or at least similar for a long time. It is a reflection of people's tendency to be so set in their ways that even knew technology might not change the ways our society is organized, culturally and otherwise.
ReplyDeleteSo JennieC, are you a Cyberspace Cowgirl as well? :-)
ReplyDelete