Published on Thursday, February 3, 2000 - 5:24am |
Alexandra DuPont Interviews William 'Freakin' Gibson!!!!
Hey folks, Harry here. And wow. Cool, Alexandra DuPont managed to seduce ol William "FREAKING" Gibson himself into an interview that is far more interesting than just some run of the mill.... "So uh um, what's uh happening with um, you know that uh NEUROMANCER film movie thing, huh'" and actually gets... dare I say it.... DEEP. You see, while there seems to have been moments in the interview where Alexandra felt like an inanimate dweeb, as the interview continues you can see her loosening up and becoming, SUPER-INTERVIEWER!!! And ya know what' Cool. If MATRIX was nothing really new to you, and just the realization of a story several textured layers beneath the brilliant cyberpunk work of William Gibson... then this is for you. In fact, Gibson talks a bit about MATRIX... and you MATRIX haters that love Gibson might be surprised... But personally... My favorite parts of this interview are when we move past 'Film' stuff and get into the literate and theoretical mind of William "FREAKING" Gibson. Enjoy this treat from that black latex wearing Alexandra DuPont....
Alexandra DuPont interviews William... freaking... Gibson
Toujours, Harry. Alexandra DuPont here. I had the good fortune recently
to chat with cyberpunk author William Gibson. Following are some
highlights from our hour-long chat -- including brief comments on his
"X-Files" episode and the long-in-development "Neuromancer" movie.
Mssr. Gibson is, of course, the granddaddy of cyberpunk -- that certain
breed of computer-obsessed, reality-bending science fiction that
influences film and television to this day. He invented the term
"cyberspace," and is generally credited with many of the concepts behind
virtual reality. "The Matrix," right down to its title, probably
wouldn't exist if it weren't for his writing (and, to be fair, Philip K.
Dick's). He also wrote that episode of "The X-Files" where the
computer's performing semi-omnipotent acts out of a remote trailer and a
virtual Scully kicks the crap out of evil nurses. (That's also the
episode featuring the woman with the ridiculous eye makeup, which I
actually asked him about.)
I'm probably insulting certain readers of this site by even bothering to
mention that Gibson's written two trilogies of mostly brilliant, gritty,
diamond-hard science fiction (in addition to a collection of short
stories and "The Difference Engine," co-authored with Bruce Sterling).
"Neuromancer," "Count Zero," and "Mona Lisa Overdrive" imagine the
emergence of a mass digital consciousness in an unnamed future; "Virtual
Light," "Idoru," and the just-released "All Tomorrow's Parties" imagine
the emergence of a mass digital consciousness in a future nearer our
own.
Gibson was out pimping "All Tomorrow's Parties" when I talked to him.
Here's what he had to say.
Alexandra DuPont
*****
I. THE REALLY BANAL QUESTION THAT FANS OF BOTH GIBSON'S WRITING AND "THE
MATRIX" SECRETLY WANT TO ASK
A. DuPont: I wanted to get the "dumb" question out of the way right off.
[affecting a moronic fanboy tone] So, uh, what'd you think of "The
Matrix"'
William Gibson: Actually, I liked it very much. I was extremely
reluctant to go and see it --
Q. I can imagine.
A. -- and finally, I was down in Santa Monica doing something, and a
friend of mine came over on a rainy day and said, "Come ON, you've got
to see this. I'm pretty sure you're not going to have the kind of
experience that you're imagining that you're going to have." And I
really liked it. I thought it was so well-done, and basically I thought
it was, in its subtext, a very good-hearted movie -- in a way that is
unusual at that budget level. It didn't have the kind of crypto-fascist
subtext that one might expect with that kind of money. I took it to be a
fable about the price of becoming more conscious. I thought that was
most beautifully expressed by the Judas character's deal he cuts,
saying, "Okay, I'll betray this guy, but you've got to guarantee that
I'll be in complete, airtight denial about it. I won't know that you
exist."
Q. "Ignorance is bliss."
A. Yeah, "ignorance is bliss." It's simple stuff, but I thought it was
good stuff. It was a very generous movie -- it really gave the audience
a lot of stuff, frame by frame. As far as having been an influence on
it, I thought they had digested their Gibson very well -- and also
obviously taken quite a lot of Philip K. Dick.
Q. Oh, definitely.
A. And you know, that's fair -- I mean, I do that myself all the time.
*****
II. THE "NEUROMANCER" MOVIE, CHRIS CARTER, AND THAT "X-FILES"
CHARACTER'S TERRIBLE EYE MAKEUP
Q. It's been a while since your last book, "Idoru"....
A. Well, I took a vacation. I hadn't taken any time off since 1981, when
I started writing short fiction, and I went straight from writing short
fiction into writing "Neuromancer." But somehow, when I finished
"Idoru," I just woke up one day and I thought, "Well, who am I' What am
I doing here' What's my life like' I'll check that out today and see
what's going on." And then I got to the next day and I thought, "That
was fun."
Q. [laughs]
A. So I just kept doing that, and I did it for about a year and a half.
But suddenly the little bells started ringing on my book contract. But I
got connected back to my life as something other than the author of
these books, which was long overdue.
Q. It also allowed you to hook up with Chris Carter and write an episode
of "The X-Files," which sounds like it's been a good move for you.
A. Yeah, that was fun -- that was the only writing I did in that period.
And I was very happy with the product. My partner and I are in the
middle of trying to do another one of those with him. We're trying to do
a final season of the "X-Files."
Q. Yeah, I really enjoyed your episode of "The X-Files." The only thing
I will say, though, is: What was UP with that chick's eye makeup'
A. Yeah, that was really strange. Plus, she was this extraordinarily
beautiful woman -- I know because she was friends with a neighbor of
mine in Vancouver. I guess it was the makeup person's take on
"cyberpunk." Actually, it might be my fault -- because I think when they
asked me about the makeup, I think I suggested that thing that Darryl
Hannah has in "Blade Runner," where they sort of silk-screened a dark
band, sort of like spray-on sunglasses. But instead it was kind of
weird. My daughter calls her "Racoony Babe."
Q. [laughs] Yeah, when you take the "Pris" character out of the "Blade
Runner" setting and she's not surrounded by flying cars, it does have a
slightly different effect. Now, about the "Neuromancer" movie. You've
got a music-video director named Chris Cunningham attached.
A. Yeah.
Q. Is it proceeding the way you want it to'
A. Well, yeah, insofar as nothing's happened -- nobody's come along to
disturb us. We're in such an early phase of the thing that there's just
these two weird imaginations at work on the idea of what the project
might be.
Q. Well, it will be nice to see the
Molly character [a total she-badass character that Trinity from "The
Matrix" is clearly modeled on, and who appears in the original "Johnny
Mnemonic" and "Neuromancer" stories] actually show up.
A. Yeah. See, that was one of the things with "Johnny Mnemonic," was
that I never WANTED the Molly character to show up, because if she HAD
shown up she'd be part of the "Johnny Mnemonic" franchise. That's why
Molly wasn't Molly.
Q. [sarcastically] Yes, that highly lucrative "Johnny Mnemonic"
franchise....
A. Yeah. Well, you know, that was always a possibility, too -- so I'm
very glad that we kept her.
*****
[Note to our remaining readers: The rest of this interview is about
Gibson's WRITING, not inevitably inferior filmic adaptations of same --
with spoilerific discussions of his latest tome, "All Tomorrow's
Parties," plus some very large words. Still here' Let's continue.]
*****
III. CONTINUITY GEEKS
Q. If I may become a continuity geek for a second, your novels form two
trilogies --
A. [anticipating a rather obvious question about whether his novels
comprise one consistent "universe" or timeline, a la Asimov or a shoddy
comic-book lineup] No, I'm not doing the Robert Heinlein "future
history" thing. I don't think you could get from the world of "Virtual
Light" to the world of "Neuromancer." In fact, with the latest three
books I don't think I was doing a future so much as a kind of alternate
tomorrow. Since I wrote "Virtual Light," I think enough things have
changed that I don't think we could get to "Virtual Light" from here.
When are we gonna get the black female president -- in time, right' But
these books are ten years off.
Q. Yeah, I think "Virtual Light" was set in 2005....
A. You know, it really pissed me off. [The date 2005] is not in "Virtual
Light." If you read very carefully and did a calculation based on the
date that Rydell saw a particular film, you could have figured out that
it was 2005. I think someone at the publisher in New York asked me the
date, and I told them, and they put it in the flap copy of the book, so
it got out. But I didn't want a date. Like with "Neuromancer," I was
very careful -- you can't really date it. I always assumed it was about
2035, but I kept it vague.
Q. That way it doesn't date.
A. Well, that's kind of the poignant thing about science fiction is that
it DOES date -- it all has kind of a "sell-by" date. But I was less
concerned with that with these last three books, because I deliberately
cranked the "futuristic" part in really, really close.
*****
IV. BILL GATES AND THE "BENT ARISTOCRACY"
Q. Now, you reserve no small amount of scorn for billionaires and the
media aristocracy in your books -- particularly in this last trilogy.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" in your books -- at least when
we're talking about human beings. Do you really think someone like Bill
Gates is susceptible to that kind of corruption'
A. Well, no -- not necessarily down to Bill personally. But the tendency
is there. You know, there's some kind of literary tradition that I'm
following here, where these are picaresque, in a way naturalistic,
social adventures -- and they require a bent aristocracy. In
"Neuromancer," I had to actually go to the original bent aristocracy and
have the Tessier-Ashpools in their private space station. But it says
somewhere in the text that they're an anachronism -- that they're kind
of dinosaurs of global capitalism.
Q. Right. The corporations are like organisms --
A. Corporations are like organisms and the Tessier-Ashpools are the sort
of Howard Hughes end of the evolutionary stick. But the shift in the new
books is that the bad guys are tabloid television shows and global
public-relations men.
*****
V. ANOTHER COLOSSALLY STUPID, OVERLY BROAD QUESTION, PLUS MISCHIEF
Q. What do you see as the biggest challenge we're facing in the new
millennium' [realizing colossal stupidity and obviousness and overly
broad nature of query] I know that's kind of a huge....
A. Well, "the millennium" is like Christmas -- it's a Christian holiday.
It's only happening because we kind of agreed that day is "Christmas."
For me, where we're going is more of what [Gibson's trademark
skinny-white-videodroning-obsessed-data-cowboy character] Laney in "All
Tomorrow's Parties" calls a "nodal point".... History is a sort of
consensual fiction which we perpetually revise -- but we've come far
enough along that sometimes now we look back, and in retrospect we can
see the emergence of changes that had enormous effects down the road,
but which just weren't visible at all to anyone....
Q. In "All Tomorrow's Parties," you made Marie Curie's husband getting
run over in 1911 a key "nodal point" in the past. Was that just an
arbitrary thing you chose, or did you have a reasoning behind that'
A. In a way, it's a viewpoint joke: Laney and [another character in "All
Tomorrow's Parties,"] Harwood are the only two people in the world who
have this peculiar sort of pathological vision that allows them to see
"OOP! that did it!" Somebody told me when I was in England that there
was a Virginia Woolf essay in which she had seriously pinned the
beginning of the modern era on a particular weekend in 1911.
Q. Really' I was wracking my head reading the book, thinking, "Well,
Marie Curie did research on nuclear material and maybe her husband's
death drove her into her research...."
A. Well, I knew that people would. But you can't get here from there.
Q. So there was some mischief in choosing that.
*****
VI. WILLIAM GIBSON PROBABLY SKIPPED BIOLOGY CLASS, PLUS SOCIOLOGICAL
PREDICTIONS
Q. In your books, you dwell on the data issues of the future -- issues
of hardware and software -- but not genetics.
A. I haven't dealt with it. I don't know why. Biology doesn't grab me in
the same way. But if you want great and thoughtful and scary treatments
of that, then you could go to my colleague Bruce Sterling. He keeps
right up on it.
Q. Sociologically, you get into it quite a bit, though -- you feature a
pretty stunning gap between the rich and the poor, technologically and
educationally. Is that sociological gap happening the WAY you predicted'
A. Well, the gap continues to widen. For me, the crucial question -- in
terms of the real world and how comfortable I am in it -- is, "Is there
a viable middle class'" And there still is in most of the industrial
Western world, and you have emerging middle classes in other places. And
then you have really nasty anomalies where suddenly there is no middle
class -- you can't even BE middle class in Mexico City because of their
situation with the devaluation. It's a situation where people literally
cannot save money.
Q. I also love how your characters have very specific knowledge -- how
they'll know nothing about history but a great deal about a particular
technology. Is that an emergent trend you see'
A. Well, I don't think that's so much a trend as it is naturalism. You
know, one of the things I count on to write these books is my sense of
what the real world is like and how it actually works. You need to have
that to start from before you start imagining changes and different
versions of it. And I find that [increasing specialization of knowledge]
everywhere. And I'm sure if you ask a high-school teacher that, they
REALLY find it everywhere.
*****
VII. THE "FINAL DIGITAL MOMENT," PLUS OTHER CONCEPTS THAT I SORT OF HAD
TROUBLE WRAPPING MY HEAD AROUND
Q. One of the things in both trilogies is the emergence of a sort of
mass Jungian collective consciousness out of data. Data in both your
trilogies has a kind of shape, and when you insert artificial
intelligence into that mix, you end up with a sort of deity.
A. Yeah.
Q. Is that just a nifty literary conceit, or is that something you
actually see coming to pass'
A. Well, it sounds very Biblical when you put it that way. [laughs] "And
he saw it, and it came to pass."
Q. I guess I'm getting carried away with the "prophet" thing...
A. Well, there's something we've been doing a long, long time as a
species, and we're the only species on the planet that does it, as far
as we know -- and that's that we find ways to extrude our interiority,
that we're self-aware in a way that other mammals don't seem to be, and
that we communicate that -- from cave paintings and standing stones to
temples and cities, all these things we've been building. And somewhere
in the last couple of hundred years, that activity started to produce
things that in some ways are more than models of consciousness, that are
more than models of the nervous system --
Q. Things that take on a life of their own.
A. We've got a situation where most human beings on the planet have
their nervous systems augmented -- to the extent that I can sit in this
hotel room and watch something happening in Tokyo as it happens, by
virtue of these systems that my species has created. So in effect, it's
like my sensorium has been augmented by my species to perceive things
that previously would have been quite inconceivable to my ancestors. And
I think we're doing that increasingly, and it's happening with
exponential speed. I don't know what the end point would necessarily be.
I mean, I've imagined it -- not so much in my fiction, but in some
nonfiction writing that I've done, that the final result of this will be
a final digital moment...
Q. Hmm.
A. ...where everything is happening -- that the speed of recall will be
so great that all digitally recorded time will sort of exist
simultaneously.
Q. You talk about it being inconceivable to our ancestors -- I wonder
what will be inconceivable to us in a hundred years.
A. You may not have to wait a hundred years. For me, what happens at the
end of "All Tomorrow's Parties" is that in the moment that the idoru
emerges from every 7-Eleven in Christendom in a form of realized free
nanotechnology, that's when the world as we know it ends -- because
that's the emergence of an absolute technological singularity. It just
doesn't take effect right away. On the other side of a technological
singularity lies a literally unimaginable world. And it's called a
technological "singularity" because what lies on the other side of it is
as unknowable as what lies on the other side of a black hole.
*****
VIII. THE TOM CLANCY OF CYBERSPACE -- NOT
Q. I thought your nanotechnology stuff in "All Tomorrow's Parties" was
really interesting -- the idea of an old watch descending into a bed of
nanobots and emerging brand-new. I was wondering: Are there
"Neuromancer" fans who are working on nanotechnology and call you and
say, "Check out what we're working on"' Do you get any "inside
information"'
A. [laughs] In a way, I'd like to pretend I'm sort of like the Tom
Clancy of cyberspace, and I hang out with these guys. And sometimes I DO
hang out with them, but I'm more inclined to take note of what they're
wearing.
Q. [laughs]
A. You know, I listen to them talk about their dating problems more
closely that I listen to them talk about what they're actually doing.
For me, I'm pretty sure the way I use nanotechnology in these novels
actually BUGS the real nanotechnologist to no end. They'd probably be
inclined to dismiss me as sort of willfully lightweight about the whole
thing. But when you've got somebody promising you a technology that will
make everyone immortal and abolish the very concept of wealth, I just
kind of throw up my hands and say, "You win -- I can't imagine that."
You know -- "There's no work for me here."
*****
IX. WHY THE INTERNET MUST BE AN ACCIDENT
Q. So you see yourself using these technologies for more thematic,
literary ends than as a technically accurate kind of device....
A. Well, I've never been TOO concerned about being technically accurate
-- but having science fiction as my native literary culture, I've still
got these sort of cultural prerogatives where I shouldn't be totally
stupid about it. For me, when I look at the world, I see that social
change is driven by emergent technologies. And emergent technologies are
almost NEVER legislated into emerging -- they just emerge. Consequently,
social change is out of control, and it doesn't actually seem to work
very well unless we ALLOW it to be out of control. When we allow it to
be out of control, we end up with something like the Internet. The
Internet emerged accidentally from a U.S. government think-tank project.
But if you had approached any government in the world with a proposal
for the Internet and told them what it was going to do, they would NEVER
have let you do it!
Q. Oh, yeah. Definitely.
A. Because you would have been setting out to do something that would
eventually undermine the very reason for there being nations. It could
only happen accidentally, and it's been this extraordinary leap into the
unknown for us as a species. And we haven't landed yet -- we're in
mid-leap. I don't know if we ever WILL land.
Q. Well, landing implies a destination. And there isn't really a
destination here.
A. The only destination would be some kind of total global catastrophe.
Q. That's a common theme in your work -- whenever anyone like the
billionaire in "All Tomorrow's Parties," or the billionaire in "Count
Zero," or the Tessier-Ashpools try to hold on to the technology and make
it their own, it blows up in their face.
A. Yeah. It blows up in their face for the sake of narrative drama in
those books, but in real life it either blows up in their face or it
just dies. It stops working if you try to control it.
*****
X. MR. GIBSON'S NEXT BOOK: NON-FICTIONAL SCIENCE FICTION
Q. With each new trilogy, you sort of dial back the technology and bring
things closer to our time. So I was wondering: What's next' Are you
going to set a series in the present day' Are you going to go into the
past'
A. Well, I'm playing with the idea of finding out whether the world
today is sufficiently strange and disturbing that I could produce a book
that would give a reader the experience the reader expects from me, yet
when they emerge from the book they would say, "Wait a minute! That
wasn't even science fiction!" or "Wait a minute! That WAS science
fiction, but it was also completely contemporary reality with next to
nothing made up!" It's very challenging, and I'm kind of edgy about
setting myself up to do it. But something in that direction may be where
I might be headed.
Q. Well, I certainly wouldn't want to jinx anything by having you tell
me, but...
A. Well, I'm playing with it, but it hasn't yet completely entangled me.
If I play with it sufficiently, it probably will.
*****
XI. MR. GIBSON vs. THE ART-WORLD TRICKSTERS
Q. Here's something I've wanted to ask you about: Didn't you once, like
10 years ago, write a story that could only be read once off a diskette'
A. Well, I wrote a long, narrative free-verse poem to my father, which
was going to be packaged in its initial form on a diskette that was
encoded so it would erase itself. And that end of it was being handled
by a bunch of New York art-world tricksters I'd hooked up with. And they
were very successful in getting an enormous, disproportionately huge
amount of publicity for this thing. But they were not successful at all
in actually producing the artifact. So it's kind of an interesting
question today as to whether or not any of these were ever really made.
I don't have one -- I've seen a photograph of one which I suspect to be
either a forgery or a kind of dummy prototype that these guys in New
York produced, and I don't know which. I mean, these were very
elaborately and expensively packaged things. You didn't just get a disk
-- you got this kind of art prop that you could kind of carry your disk
around in, and it was a large object. The outcome for me was actually
kind of poetically correct and satisfactory, in that someone got a hold
of a copy of the thing kind of early on, cracked the supposedly
uncrackable code and posted the poem on the Internet ,where it remains
to this day.
Q. Fabulous.
A. And the longer it stays there, the more for some reason it decays. So
every year or so, I have a look at it, and I find that lines have
changed and it's sort of mutating into something else.
Q. A digital version of Burroughs' cut-and-paste technique.
A. Yeah -- it's like it's being cut and pasted by cyberspace itself.
*****
XII. "THE GUY WHO WRITES THE BOOK"
Q. You know, your prose is really lean, and I was wondering how much
self-editing you do -- how many drafts you put a book through.
A. Well, I don't actually do drafts. I wish I did, because if I could do
that I'd probably be a lot more productive. I sort of start out putting
words in a row and continually revise the whole thing as I go along. And
there is a point at which I somehow know when a piece of it is done. I
look at it and say, "That's cooked." But otherwise, it's a matter of
going through it and looking for words that just somehow aren't the
right words and taking them out.
Q. How many hours do you write a day'
A. Well, it depends on what stage I'm in. For the bulk of this book, I
wrote about three or four hours a day, in something that pretty much
approximates a sort of nine-to-five situation -- I'd get up early, drive
my daughter to school, have breakfast, go down, answer the mail, start
writing, take a lunch, go back, do some more writing. And that's like an
optimal day. When I'm closer to the end of the book, and the buffer gets
overloaded and I'm trying to hold the whole structure in my head and
figure out what it needs next, it sort of demands I spend more time
doing it. And when I was younger, I could get into 12- to 14-hour
writing days at the end. But I can't do that any more because, you know,
quality control kind of becomes an issue. It takes more, shorter
sessions to maintain the right polish on the thing.
Q. You say you try to keep it all in your head. Do you do a lot of prep,
or do you just jump in there and start writing'
A. I just jump in. I usually have no more than a very, very vague
apprehension of what the end of the thing is going to be. I don't think
I could sustain my own interest in the process if I had it all plotted
out. I remember being very, very impressed as an English major reading
E.M. Forester's opinion that if you were a novelist, and you rather than
your characters were in control of where the book was going, you
definitely weren't doing your real job. And that stuck with me. It's
hard to explain to people who haven't been there, but I believe that
absolutely. When I meet another writer of fiction, one of the bonding
(or non-bonding) issues for me is when I discover whether or not the
human being I'm talking to who writes these books is WHO WRITES THE
BOOK. If I'm talking to the guy who writes the book, we're probably not
going to wind up being that close -- because NOBODY ever gets to talk to
the guy who writes my books, not even me. [laughs]
Q. So there's a dichotomy there.
A. Yeah. My job is to sandpaper down the membrane between my conscious
and my unconscious, and let my unconscious do the job. I mean, the
hardest thing I ever have to do is just get out of the way and let
whatever produces this material do its thing. I wish it were easy.
[laughs]
Q. It really isn't, is it'
A. No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Talkbacks_Story
Please let Neuromancer grace
celluloid by Domu | Feb 3rd, 2000 05:10:04 AM | Great Interview! by Psyberia | Feb 3rd, 2000 05:42:10 AM | William Gibson Movies by Triumph | Feb 3rd, 2000 05:45:59 AM | Gibson is lame compared to... by AnotherThief | Feb 3rd, 2000 06:20:26 AM | Me, I prefer Jeff Noon but hey
I'm a Limey by Meat Takeshi | Feb 3rd, 2000 07:32:30 AM | Chris Cunningham by JUNKY | Feb 3rd, 2000 08:25:13 AM | The division between the
classes - technology NOT money by DixieFlatline | Feb 3rd, 2000 08:39:26 AM | Kudos... by Pseudo | Feb 3rd, 2000 09:08:50 AM | An Interview with William
Gibson COOL!!.......shame
about whose by Mr Logic | Feb 3rd, 2000 09:36:12 AM | Don't want to sound like a
nedok, but what does A. du
Pont do? by Funny Ha Ha | Feb 3rd, 2000 09:37:39 AM | stephenson vs. gibson by Mean Ween | Feb 3rd, 2000 09:46:58 AM | Nueromancer isn't coming
anytime soon... by Palmer Eldritch | Feb 3rd, 2000 10:49:29 AM | Gibson is great, but he's no
Stephenson by krosshair | Feb 3rd, 2000 11:10:06 AM | AICN-you guys are phat by sabonis | Feb 3rd, 2000 11:22:15 AM | Excellent Interview by smilin'jackruby | Feb 3rd, 2000 11:31:44 AM | On ------- passing
-------- Memes by Lickerish | Feb 3rd, 2000 12:11:21 PM | If A. DuPont ever stops
writing for AICN... by poodle | Feb 3rd, 2000 12:51:29 PM | gibson-new rose hotel by deconX-1 | Feb 3rd, 2000 01:57:03 PM | neuromancer-underwood by deconX-1 | Feb 3rd, 2000 02:00:09 PM | Alexandra DuPont (the
brainless prat) responds.... by Alexandra DuPont | Feb 3rd, 2000 02:01:45 PM | kkrankk says: Very nice
surprise this morning. by kkrankk | Feb 3rd, 2000 02:40:19 PM | Neuromancer was great... but
Gibson's lost his touch by Tom Lee | Feb 3rd, 2000 03:04:54 PM | thank you so much by SteppinRazor | Feb 3rd, 2000 04:15:56 PM | musings & stuff by geekie | Feb 3rd, 2000 05:22:03 PM | WILD PALMS by tzotz_choj | Feb 3rd, 2000 05:44:03 PM | You know, “geekie,” I just
have to respond to your post
(and my by Alexandra DuPont | Feb 3rd, 2000 05:53:21 PM | General Inane Comments by Ben Dobyns | Feb 3rd, 2000 06:34:38 PM | Corrections by Ben Dobyns | Feb 3rd, 2000 06:37:29 PM | Matrix Was The Movie Johnny
Mneumonic Was Supposed To
Be(Plus Th by Jake The Snake | Feb 3rd, 2000 06:55:53 PM | A Sexist Comment by pharcyde | Feb 3rd, 2000 07:23:37 PM | Funny isn't it? by Owatonna | Feb 3rd, 2000 07:32:42 PM | Alexandra...close...pharcyde
--I agree...Exquisite Corpse
was.. by Lickerish | Feb 3rd, 2000 10:50:19 PM | Pharcyde = Bonehead by murph | Feb 3rd, 2000 11:58:22 PM | Well spoken, Artaud. I’d like
to make a few additional
points be by Alexandra DuPont | Feb 3rd, 2000 11:59:19 PM | Um.... by KodaK | Feb 4th, 2000 12:07:57 AM | One more thing: by KodaK | Feb 4th, 2000 12:23:22 AM | To SithLord-999; RE: "New
Rose Hotel" film. by Revelare | Feb 4th, 2000 12:35:51 AM | gibson material to check out by structureNmedium | Feb 4th, 2000 12:50:27 AM | Stephenson, Gibson on Dick
(Philip K., silly) by Lazarus Long | Feb 4th, 2000 02:16:57 AM | the good the bad & the
intellectual by willjco | Feb 4th, 2000 03:06:14 AM | The Neuromancer had a snow
crash - p2 by AnotherThief | Feb 4th, 2000 04:17:21 AM | Black feathers by discobunny | Feb 4th, 2000 06:04:29 AM | credible? by tuxick | Feb 4th, 2000 08:21:14 AM | Agrippa by Garr_ | Feb 4th, 2000 08:31:14 AM | -=Phriendly neighborhood
phreak=- by Phr33k0uT | Feb 4th, 2000 01:51:41 PM | that's what SHE said by chaosgrrl | Feb 4th, 2000 02:55:01 PM | opinions on gibson. by emailme | Feb 4th, 2000 07:12:03 PM | yeah, sounds like you've read
him!(not) by newmz | Feb 4th, 2000 09:01:29 PM | Now, in all fairness to “ol’
painless”... by Alexandra DuPont | Feb 4th, 2000 09:35:12 PM | Vurt by GameCat | Feb 5th, 2000 08:24:58 AM | A note from one of those women
who is genetically incapable
of c by Dawn O' the Dead | Feb 5th, 2000 02:17:34 PM | who the hell is alexandra du
something?? by lexy1 | Feb 7th, 2000 01:53:49 PM | Neuromancer in 2000 Research by bmf247 | Mar 19th, 2000 11:13:19 PM |
|
|