Storyline: 3/5 
 Characters: 2/5 
 Writing Style: 2/5 
 World: 2/5 
 --Below information added approximately one year after original reading-- 
 Find a top ten science fiction list, and Neuromancer is probably on it; extend that to a top-25, top-50, or top-100, and you are sure to. As for my list? Somewhere near the bottom. 
 The world and everything in it was a miasma. The characters were all disassociative and delinquent. The culture was predatory, the backdrop polluted, the plot turbulent. The very writing was brash and unsettling. This is one of those books, though, which I can recognize as having merits despite my lack of appreciation. Gibson was able to portray his vision vividly. I experienced the every-so-aptly named "Sprawl." And I was sickened by it. Really, I felt ill reading this - headaches, stupor, mild nausea. A good writer should be able to put you into their world; Gibson did this. I simply didn't want to be there. To that extent, it is simply a matter of taste, and this was one of my first clues that I wasn't going to like the cyberpunk genre. 
 I'd still debate those who put this on a top ten list. The scenes were episodic, lacking continuity. The plot and drama stretched. The cyber element and reveals feel hokey in that way of science fiction novels that do not weather time well. Finally, there was an element of randomness and indecisiveness about the world building, scenes, characters, and plots that undermined a cohesive picture. That may have been a stylistic choice, though, and is consistent with other works of the subgenre. Maybe this is all just another way of me saying that it was not to my tastes.