I put it in the “fun concepts boring characters” bucket with most Clarke.
I really liked the next Hugo winner. And 2020. And 2023. Honestly I think about half of the Hugo winners are amazing. 2007. 2002. 2000. Oh 1993. That’s a vintage. 1990. 87, 86, 85, 84 is ok. Oh. They get more consistent as they go back in time. Still pretty good.
The thing is the concepts were nothing new, the “science” was handwaving bullshit that didn’t pass the sniff test, and the character development was so incredibly bad it beggars the imagination that it was written by a literature prof. Everything was a slap in the face that kept you from engaging in what little there was to recommend the story. And the deus ex machina plot device at the end that obviated everything else that proceeded it was the icing on the cake.
Really!? Curious why? I enjoyed it, but I didnt watch the TV show.
If it had been written in the last 3 years, I’d have been utterly convinced it was written by a bad AI.
I lost my last shred of respect for the Hugos when that won for its year. Execrable trash.
I put it in the “fun concepts boring characters” bucket with most Clarke.
I really liked the next Hugo winner. And 2020. And 2023. Honestly I think about half of the Hugo winners are amazing. 2007. 2002. 2000. Oh 1993. That’s a vintage. 1990. 87, 86, 85, 84 is ok. Oh. They get more consistent as they go back in time. Still pretty good.
The thing is the concepts were nothing new, the “science” was handwaving bullshit that didn’t pass the sniff test, and the character development was so incredibly bad it beggars the imagination that it was written by a literature prof. Everything was a slap in the face that kept you from engaging in what little there was to recommend the story. And the deus ex machina plot device at the end that obviated everything else that proceeded it was the icing on the cake.
I wanted my money back at the end.
was 1984 Neuromancer by WilliamGibson?
deleted by creator