>At 10:07 PM 3/12/97 -0500, John Satta (that's me) wrote:
>>Gibson and Sterling collaborated on _The Difference Engine_ which is
>>referred to as "steampunk". [snip] The ending was a disappointment in the
>usual Gibsonian
>>mold - vague murky conspiratorial goings-on I found impenetrable.
>
On 12:44 AM 3/14/97 +1000 Damien Broderick wrote:
>The key is in realising that the book is narrated by the AI - the Analytical
>Engine. Moreover, this AI is a kind of quantum consciousness, so that the
>story involves a series of superposed alternatives. I was uncertain of this
>interpretation, so I asked Bill Gibson, and he said, `Of course'.
Really? I totally missed that! How did you figure that out? Was there a
clue or tipoff that I missed?
Or
Are you pulling my leg?
That explanation makes sense (I think). Is it also the explanation for the
end of _Neuromancer_ ? Unfortunatekly Occam's Razor tells me that they
didn't have a coherent way to end the story and it just ran out of steam
(pun intended). The other stuff sounds like justification after the fact to
me. YMMV
-John
_______________________________________
John P. Satta
work email: mailto:jsatta@imtech.com
home email: mailto:satta@cpatch.com