Two Posts or One?

I suppose it’s a little early to say this, but I’m not really impressed with Veronica.  Or perhaps, I’m not impressed with the novel’s narrator, Allison.  I find nothing likeable about her and so far her actions seem either selfish or stupid (or both, I suppose).  I understand, though, that that’s possibly the point.  It’s certainly postmodern to reconstruct the character archetypes of stories.  Readers are used to the protagonist or narrator to be likeable, to fit certain expectations and character traits.  So because Allison doesn’t really fit these ideals, is she postmodern or post-postmodern?  I really don’t know; I’m still trying to get a grip on this whole post-postmodern concept.  It’s like sticking too many metas in front of a word—after a while I get a little lost.

So what else?  Is it transgressive?  Certainly, in the same way that “Secretary” focused on sexual taboos, Veronica also has its taboos.  Even in the first forty pages we’re faced with a boatload of them.  Allison has hepatitis.  It’s not often a main character in a novel has a serious illness, especially one that is usually spread via drug use.  Veronica had AIDS, another taboo illness.  There is also a lot of reference to minors engaging in sex (with much older partners), drinking, and drug use.  No doubt the rest of the book will more thoroughly explore these taboos and others.  But again, how do we categorize this kind of work?  Taboos are still taboos (obviously that’s why they’re called so) and they’re still beyond what modern society accepts.  When you write about them, isn’t that postmodernism?  So then really, what is post-postmodernism?

It’s clear I still need another class to get this whole thing straightened out.  

WTF?! (Okay, not really.)

I’m going to be honest with you.  I’m having a hard time with Neuromancer.  I guess it’s difficult to explain.  I’ve read sci-fi books, seen enough movies, and have certainly trekked my way through a fair share of confusing novels.  But this one is different.  I read through the summary on wikipedia (amazing how things became so much clearer when someone just straightened everything out for me) and now have a better grip on what’s actually going on in the story, but I don’t really know what to say about it.  Yes, of course, it’s filled to the brim with cyberpunk aspects, but as of now we’ve gone over that so much it’s all become quite obvious and I’m not sure what else I could add.  Our discussion on how Neuromancer is like a hard-boiled detective novel was interesting, and I saw more of that as I continued reading.  One big example was when the Turing Police was questioning Case.  They take on the “good cop” and “bad cop” personas, something Case even mentions in the novel.

Okay, well this blog is more self-text than I wanted, but like I said, I’m stuck with this one.  I understand the Technoculture, cyberpunk, etc. relations, but I find myself unable to draw from other knowledge to make any new comments.  Perhaps I know less about the whole sci-fi culture than I thought.  Not surprisingly, it wasn’t a genre studied at my private Catholic grade school or high school.  But really it’s always good to find something you don’t know a lot about.  That’s how you learn.  Neuromancer is definitely an experience for me.