did not finish, couldn't take the prose ( )

I usually love Gibson but although I thought it was incredibly creative, I just couldn't get in the groove with this book ( )

Para um leitor com uma afinidade maior ao steampunk, a ideia de um mundo em que a computação a vapor e seus engenhos chega já a produzir resultados - análise de dados, cálculos complexos, veículos arrojados, cavalos de corrida mecânicos, armas arrojadas, supremacia britânica, várias ondas de luditas, os primeiros já convertidos em empresários ou sindicalistas, uma meritocracia tecnológica com força política - na época vitoriana, esse livro pode ser lido com mais calma e então saborear seu universo. Mas como não é exatamente o caso, acredito que a união entre personagens críveis, mas talvez por isso, de atitudes atrapalhadas, e mesmo espalhafatosas, como no caso de Mallory, mais um enredo convoluto, que além disso acena para personagens e fatos históricos, bem como teorias computacionais... Essa união dificulta a leitura. É como não entender a direção da narrativa ao mesmo tempo que achar as decisões dos personagens grosseiras. ( )

Victoriana w/computers, but not many women. And, the plot is a mess, but does anyone read Gibson for his plots? ( )

So I'm teaching a course on Steampunk and Philosophy this coming spring semester (team-teaching, to be more precise), and I'm admittedly not an expert in Steampunk literature. I am, however, somewhat more expert in science fiction as literature, thus my involvement. I thought it would be a good idea to reread this Gibson novel I'd read but didn't remember well. I might as well have been reading it for the first time, I remembered so little of it.

What a gobsmackingly good book, this. Like his other novels, Gibson is not always easy to read, and not in the deceptive complexity I've come to expect from Le Guin or even the deceptively not-simple prose of Dick. He can be dense, and is here. But it is so worth it. Really, it's not the love of polysyllabic language that Neal Stephenson suffers from on occasion, either, but something else. In Difference Engine, it's the choice of alternative history as his SF form, his fragmented narrative and shifting perspectives, his decision to have not only the setting in Victorian England but also the narration reflect certain sensibilities. I don't know. It's late for me, and I've only just finished. It will hopefully make more sense later before I have to talk about it with younguns. There were times when I asked myself "what the hell is going on here," only to giggle later as I asked again, "what the hell is going on here, indeed!" Honestly, by the time I finished the book (an hour ago), I was enjoying the ambiguities so much I almost didn't want the final collection of artifacts that give more context to the history the narrative exists in. Almost.

It all pays off, in the way that alt histories often do for me. I of course thought of The Man in the High Castle, although the discomfort of the "true" mixed with the fiction of the narrative is really the only point of comparison so far. Maybe more will come later, and I certainly will be thinking on this point in the future, but both Dick and Gibson (yes, I know there is a co-author, but honestly the only voice I heard was Gibson's (no, I haven't read anything else by the other guy (yes, I know that's not fair (no, I don't care (yes, right now I'm just playing around with parentheses))))) make good use of this reader's discombobulation. Dick deals more with the metaphysical aspects of authenticity and reality, though, and Gibson seems more interested in the traditional "what-if" aspect of both alt-history and SF generally. Ok, I'm getting off track here.

Regardless, this book is very much in keeping with Gibson's other writing, his other persistent themes and subject matter-- the latter of which is fascinating given the technological differences present. I very much enjoyed it, and very much look forward to it's role in my coming class. ( )