The Bookhouse Boys discussion

William Gibson's Spook Country is our pick for April. Let's hope there are scary country singers' ghosts in here...'cause that's what I'm picturing.

Well, the scenes of the deaths of celebrities are used for some kind of locality based artwork, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean...

FYI, there are a bunch of used copies of this book from secondhand sellers on Amazon starting as low as a penny (+$3.99 S&H). Probably other places as well for those who hate Amazon.

Thanks, Dave!

Of course, another option is the local library, if one is inclined.

Good point. I woulda done the library myself, except I'm moving soon and don't want to worry about misplacing a library book in all the melee.

Yet another option: optical jack in your cerebellum.

Jason wrote: "Yet another option: optical jack in your cerebellum."

I never did like netrunners.

This is making me want to play Shadowrun

Jeppe wrote: "This is making me want to play Shadowrun"

Late this year for the computer version, which is looking pretty good judging by the gameplay video they showed.

I'm interested in CD Projekt Red's upcoming cyberpunk game, too.

Incidentally, Spook Country is NOT cyberpunk, but Gibson has a way of talking about media (the recording kind, not the broadcasting kind) and other technology in an interesting, vaguely futuristic way no matter what the setting.

Jason wrote: "Incidentally, Spook Country is NOT cyberpunk"

Thank GOD! This thread was starting to make me dread starting the book.

Matt wrote: "Thank GOD! This thread was starting to make me dread starting the book."

Aaaaand we're back to Neuromancer sucked.

Matt wrote: "Jason wrote: "Incidentally, Spook Country is NOT cyberpunk"

Thank GOD! This thread was starting to make me dread starting the book."

Aaaaand we're back to Neuromancer sucked.

Is it okay to admit that the reason it took me until today to order the book is because I was holding out hope that a meteor would hit first?

There's still a chance for a meteor. If it asks directions, I'll give it your address, Asterios.

Just blew through the first 40 pages. Interesting stuff so far. I can tell I'm going to have a hard time putting it down/forgetting about it. Just came to the first mention of the Blue Ant firm. I know this is Blue Ant #2. Has anyone read the first one?

I've read Pattern Recognition (just started Spook Country yesterday). The first one is really quite good, the first Gibson book that wasn't set in the future but still had the same cutting-edge sci fi feel as before. I'm afraid that it might feel somewhat dated today though, since there is a lot of tech savviness (for the early 'oughts) and brand name dropping in there.

Jeppe wrote: "...and brand name dropping in there."
I was planning on talking about this on the show, but the brand name thing has always bugged me in fiction. It has an odd counter-intuitive result of pulling me out of the narrative, screaming with a megaphone: "THIS IS A PRODUCT IN YOUR WORLD! HOW FREAKING REAL IS THAT?! HUH?! HUH?!?!"
I can see how it would be important in something like American Psycho (which I've never read) or something else by Bret Easton Ellis because of the pornography of materialism and "status-symbolery" in that story, or what have you, but it's always been jarring and comes off as lazy to me, even though it doesn't seem like it should. I'm a Libra, baby, my scales are all over the place. :\

Re: brand-name dropping - A GR reviewer wrote, In one sense, this book is about name-checking pop culture ephemera and devices. More attention is given to the description of the insoles of Adidas GSG-9 boots and cesium bullets than actual story development.
So, I guess what I noticed is not a fluke or something that's going anywhere soon, but a device that Gibson is using as part of the text/experience. I'm willing to go along for the ride.

I may have read Pattern Recognition, as lame as that sounds... I know I've read Neuromancer and Idoru, and I'm 99% sure I've read one other book (either PR or Virtual Light.)

I'm going to wait to weigh in on the brand name thing until the show. Definitely a topic that I was planning on talking about.

Jason wrote: "I'm going to wait to weigh in on the brand name thing until the show."

Great. This book's already making you paranoid.

Conspiracy buffs, look no further than "The Crying of Lot 49" -- a book that indulges in paranoia so much, you almost expect to see your own name mentioned somewhere in the text.

I'm sensing a theme.

From the author's blog:

Q: Why do you seem obsessed with brand name apparel et al in Pattern Recognition and Spook Country?

A: You ain't seen nothing, yet! Actually the new one may explain that, a bit. Or just further convince some people that I'm obsessed. It's one of the ways in which I feel I understand how the world works, and there aren't really that many of those. It's not about clothes, though, or branding; it's about code, subtext. I was really delighted, for instance, to learn who made George Bush's raincoats. A company in Little Rock (now extinct, alas) but they were made of Ventile, a British cotton so tightly woven that you can make fire hoses (and RAF ocean survival suits) out of it. Which exists because Churchill demanded it, because the Germans had all the flax production sewn up. No flax, no fire hoses for the Blitz. The cultural complexities that put that particular material on Bush's back delight me deeply; it's a kind of secret history (and not least because most people would find it fantastically boring, I imagine).

What Gibson does not do is use it as a shortcut for description. I don't know what half those brand names are, but still have a very vivid picture of this world and its accoutrements. That's why, whatever it is, it's not lazy.

I had a dream I was complaining to a friend about this, so I thought I'd share it for real. I can't stand Gibson's random use of commas. I like 19th-century literature, so I love comma porn, but he's not using them as "traffic signs" (as many elementary school teachers explain them). They're just there and they bug the shit out of me: "So, Milgrim, assumed, what Brown was doing now was drafting his report of what had happened in Union Square." (pg. 210)
TOO MANY COMMAS! >:(


Phew! That feels better.

Doesn't Gibson know that commas and punctuation were intended to make emoticons!?

:(

I, too, am being, slowly driven mad, by the overuse of commas, in every sentence, of this book.

I've thought more than once that the book would be improved if about 25% of the commas were removed.

Are you guys both reading an electronic version of the book? Because I highly doubt that is an intentional comma.

I'm reading a paperback. And it's littered with bizarre commas.

I'm reading a print copy. Matt's example above could be a typo, but the general overuse of commas is a stylistic choice and, if I remember right, a technique Gibson used in Neuromancer as well. It slows the pace of the text and makes it feel a bit disconnected and technical. That's why you see a lot more commas used in non-fiction these days than fiction, because they have a way of draining the warmth from the storytelling.

An example from a random page I flipped to just now (p. 219): "Tito looked back, from the front seat, as the rear of the Lincoln cleared the gate. It closed smoothly enough, but Garreth stopped, got out, went back to check that it was fully closed."

Random example 2 (p. 91): "They rose at a sharp angle, to be intercepted by a satellite, which bounced them back down, past the curve of the earth."

This style is fairly complementary to the things Gibson is writing about and the icy dialog that reads like everyone just met five minutes ago and are all interviewing each other for an article in Wired instead of having a conversation. (To be fair, this is often true within the context of the story.) It creates an interesting effect, but I'm not sure it's one I can bring myself to appreciate.

Thanks, Dave. Your examples jogged my memory. I did notice myself that he uses a lot of compound sentences, and relatively few short, declarative ones. I wouldn't call them "bizarre," as they are perfectly grammatical, but there are a lot of them. The comma above, after Milgrim, IS bizarre. I would assume it's a typo.

Jason wrote: "The comma above, after Milgrim, IS bizarre, and I would assume, a typo."

There should be a comma after "and."

Dave wrote: "I've thought more than once that the book would be improved if about 25% of the commas were removed."

It would take a lot more than that, IMO.

Dave wrote: "That's why you see a lot more commas used in non-fiction these days than fiction, because they have a way of draining the warmth from the storytelling."

Gibson's prose drains any warmth from this story, commas or no.

I don't even want to talk about this book. Not because I hated it. I liked it, although I certainly didn't love it. I'm anticipating an hour long bitch fest, though, and I'm dreading it.

We don't have to talk about it, then. We're all adults. We can do an episode about cocktail recipes, home-brewing, kittens vs. puppies, or whatever. We'll just keep walking past the open windows.

Home-brewing kittens vs. home-brewing puppies? You sick bastard.

Matt wrote: "We'll just keep walking past passing the open windows."

I hate you so much.

Matt wrote: "We don't have to talk about it, then. We're all adults. We can do an episode about cocktail recipes, home-brewing, kittens vs. puppies, or whatever. We'll just keep walking past the open windows."

My vote would be to talk about it, but not devote an entire episode to it. Treat it like anything else we've read, except that in this case, we all happened to read it at the same time.

It appears Spook Country has had a negative effect on me.

Jim wrote: "It appears Spook Country has had a negative effect on me."

How so?

Jason wrote: "How so?"
See my above posts. Not exactly Mister Positivity.

Jason wrote: "I don't even want to talk about this book."

The way our technical issues have been going lately, you might not have to! :)

I'm not going to do nothing but complain about the book, though I'll freely admit I do have complaints. I do try not to treat our readings like that, though I don't always succeed. (Our The Beautiful and Damned discussion being a case in point...though in the case of that one, I hated the characters so much that was really what I was kvetching about.)

Let's discuss the novel's themes and other points of literary interest the same as we would with any other book. That's always going to be my vote.

Dave wrote: "Let's discuss the novel's themes and other points of literary interest the same as we would with any other book. That's always going to be my vote."

You are a better man than I, sir. My eyes are crossing just thinking about reading the rest of this thing.

Dave wrote: "Let's discuss the novel's themes and other points of literary interest the same as we would with any other book. That's always going to be my vote.

That's the approach I always try to take. I tried to engage with Midaq Alley and Never Let Me Go on that level, despite truly despising both books.

There seems to be an awful lot of negativity swirling around this one, plus I didn't like it myself enough to feel like defending it for an entire show. Let's open with it, but not feel we need to devote the entire show to it if we feel we have nothing more constructive to say. Fair?

Works for me. I always got plenty else to talk about. :)

If anyone's interested, here's a link to a recording of Gibson's talk at the NYPL a few days ago.

Jason wrote: "There seems to be an awful lot of negativity swirling around this one."

Yeah, apologies for my contribution to that. I'm not even halfway through the book. But in truth, the characters, the situations, the tech -- none of it is connecting with me in any way. Hollis is the only person I feel I have any grasp on, and that is tenuous at best.

Except for The Unwritten, I feel like I'm not connecting to anything I'm reading the last few weeks. Maybe it's not Gibson; maybe it's me.

Jim wrote: "Yeah, apologies for my contribution to that. I'm not even halfway through the book. But in truth, the characters, the situations, the tech -- none of it is connecting with me in any way..."

This has been my experience with the text, too, Jim. I'm looking forward to talking about this a bit and speculating about Gibson's (presumed) intentions with the narrative tone and other elements.

I like the prose style. I like the characters, the setting, the situations and the tech. What I was not so enamoured by was the plot, which ended up undermining the whole experience for me.

Is the prose style in Spook Country really that different from Gibson's earlier writing, or is this you guys' first exposure to it?

It's my first Gibson.

It's not my first, but it's been decades since I read Neuromancer. I believe that was more...lyrical..but I'm not sure. I plan to read Count Zero soon, and I can better answer the question after I do.

Gotcha. Well, Pattern Recognition is written in much the same style as Spook Country, including the overuse of commas, but from what I've read of Spook Country so far the plot of PR is much stronger. So if you find yourself unable to tolerate the prose, I wouldn't recommend going back and reading PR (which this is kind of the sequel to), but if you have less stylistic issues I would highly recommend it.

As for Gibson's older cyberpunk stuff, the style is definitely a little more lyrical (for lack of a better term), but it is still Gibson-esque in his use of clipped sentences, short dialogue, etc. Undoubtedly one reason why a lot of critics hated Neuromancer when it came out.