At some point after Virtual Light, I think I fell out of love with William Gibson. I still think he's one of the most amazing visionaries of our time, but his delivery doesn't immediately suck me in like it used to. I remember being hooked within ten pages of Virtual Light. Now, it feels like the first third of the novel is devoted to disjointed character development and an endless string of names to remember that don't quite gel into an interesting plot until you're well into the story.
This is something he's very consciously aware of. In an amazing documentary, he confessed that readers often complain his more recent books are nothing like Neuromancer. He says this is because Neuromancer was a very young man's book, written by a young man, and that is a cognitive place he doesn't have access to anymore. Futher, he says this is probably a very good thing for his work. I can sympathize with that point, and he's probably right. To draw a parallel, William S. Burroughs was a different man in the 1950s than he was in the 1980s, and his works reflect that progression. I suppose that all writers must embrace that sort of evolution. That said, I personally prefer Naked Lunch to Cities of The Red Night; as writers mature, I don't suppose it's a given that their readers will mature with a similar progression. This applies equally to Gibson as it did to Burroughs.
Spook Country gains momentum quickly in the final chapters. All men love spy stories, and this is one infused with some unique technical and cultural elements. It seems Gibson is just getting comfortable with this new direction of writing, and I look forward to reading more of it. If he's able to harness his born talent as a technical visionary and apply it to the world we currently live in, his new work will become more captivating than Neuromancer ever was."
Link to Original Source