Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I like sci-fi but I tend to only like classics. I found Neuromancer so incredibly interesting because it seems to be at the root of so much contemporary "cyberpunk" stuff.

I often say that genres are what happens when mediocre artists latch on to something fresh someone created, and to me it's only worth spending time with the originators. Though I understand lots of people like that something that engrossed them can be sought further in a genre.

And that's pretty much how I felt about reading Neuromancer. I like cyberpunk so I want the real thing, not the emulation. Neuromancer and Ghost in the Shell are so much better than Matrix. And I love the Matrix.



Interesting, though I think this type of thinking os overly black and white. All art is inspired and derived from the context in which it was created. While there are obviously more and less original works, genre boundaries are often soft. This may just have more to do with what you were exposed to first or when you were born?


I agree, this is just how I go about it. Not defending it on any general grounds whatsoever.

I acknowledge that a lot of the media I consume ends up being just part of a genre, and that I often don't even know the originals and only have access to simulacra.

But when I think about what I wanna read next, what albums to buy records of and so on, I prefer to go as far upstream as I can or know about.


Everything is inspired by something else. Objectively, punk rock is "just" rock music in terms of instruments and chords. And Jackson Pollack was not the first abstract painter. Etc.

But, some things are clearly... more distinct from their forebearers than others.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: