I was "meh" on The Diamond Age but am an unabashed Gibson fangurl. Neuromancer left deep impressions on me. I prefer his short stories but I like where he's been going with his more recent novels.

raises hand too

I love Gibson and always have. But Stephenson is Da Man, in my opinion.

Though I, too, was "meh" on The Diamond Age.

The rest of his stuff, though... Snow Crash and especially Cryptonomicon ...loved. LOVED. Read Quicksilver , but have yet to read the rest of the Baroque Cycle.

What I love about Stephenson is that he sort of assumes you know of the tech and then will tell you how it works. Gibson, I seem to recall, admitted he knew jack about computers when he wrote Neuromancer but, as was mentioned previously, was far more interested in technology's effect on society and people.

Stephenson's characters have more depth in my opinion, while Gibson's weirder explorations are more compelling in a different way.

I like Sterling a lot as an editor, but I don't enjoy his writing.

I think that's Sterling I'm thinking of.

Neuromancer was a revelation to me, but it started to seem like Gibson was continuing to write in that universe because that's what people expected. Pattern Recognition was thoroughly awesome abd made me love him again.

Snow Crash seemed like something really new and different when it came out, but The Baroque Cycle has overshadowed all other Stephenson for me.

Gibson, I seem to recall, admitted he knew jack about computers when he wrote Neuromancer but, as was mentioned previously, was far more interested in technology's effect on society and people.

Yeah -- he had a blog entry a while back (while he was writing Spook County IIRC) about how people often write him asking exactly what some bit of tech in his novels is supposed to look like, and how a fair amount of the time, he really has no idea. Just because his characters are in many cases partially defined by their implants doesn't mean he has any clue what they look like or how they're supposed to "work."

I like that about Gibson. Sometimes it's the time for OCD projections of current tech. And sometimes it's so concept-based you not only can't call foul, but just have to sit back and enjoy the conceptual ride.

Stephenson's characters have more depth in my opinion, while Gibson's weirder explorations are more compelling in a different way.

Man, I couldn't agree more. I loved Neuromancer way back when, but so much of the guy's subsequent writing has the same formula: one or two brilliant ideas, a couple of sharp turns of phrase, but leaden characters, poorly written action sequences (it's all but impossible to tell what's going on in many of them), and a rehash of the same old plot. I read most every Gibson book, but mostly for the cool ideas.

Neuromancer was a revelation to me, but it started to seem like Gibson was continuing to write in that universe because that's what people expected. Pattern Recognition was thoroughly awesome abd made me love him again.

-t is me. I read Neuromancer when it first came out, and it was one of the few times I realized that I had seen the birth of something new. I was about to give up on Gibson after several books of well-written pointlessness and then Pattern Recognition came along.

leaden characters

Oh yeah. I could never really grok Case at all. He just seemed to be The Protagonist, with no real personality to speak of.

poorly written action sequences (it's all but impossible to tell what's going on in many of them)

Heh. Yeah, I had to re-read a few of them several times to figure out what the hell happened. It's like he didn't want to tell me the important stuff. Sometimes it felt like he was really concerned with being A Writer.

Pattern Recognition was thoroughly awesome abd made me love him again.

The concept for that book sounds really cool.