I think the reason he bothers me is that from page one, he reminds me of myself at that age...but then seems to go nowhere despite having the fucking world handed to him on a platter. He gets everything most people could dream of, over and over, and repeatedly follows it by bitching and moaning and being miserable. He's the kind of person I'd want nothing whatsoever to do with, making him annoying to read about. It didn't help that none of the other characters were likable either.
That's kinda the point of the book. Getting "everything you ever dreamed of" doesn't fix you. Being a magician doesn't get you a girl or make your parents love you or make you a more mature person. You see this with everyone. Quentin is always looking for the next thing to come along and fix him. The next fantasy to make his life all better. When shit doesn't work out perfectly, Quentin tries to run away to something new. That's what I like about the characterization. Quentin is unfiltered to the reader. He's petty and selfish in the same ways everyone is sometimes.
In fact, the overall pointlessness of magic is a point of the book. Look at Alice's parents or the group after they all graduate as the perfect example. Magic doesn't fix any of their problems or give them any direction in life or much of anything. And absent purpose or direction or need of anything, they turn self-destructive.
But his parents did love him and he did get the girl. He also got the fantasy life he wanted and permanent, effortless wealth. It just wasn't good enough for him because he was either chemically imbalanced or a little shit. The fantasy wasn't fantastical enough. The girl he got wasn't exciting enough. The career opportunities opened up by his skill for magic weren't interesting enough for him. Nothing he got was as good as he wanted it to be.
Magic didn't make him happy not because it was pointless. It didn't make him happy because nothing was going to make him happy. It's not an unrealistic personality--plenty of real people are like that--but it's not one that you see a lot in fiction. Being depressed sucks and watching someone be depressed sucks. I felt bad for him because he kept expecting external factors to make his unhappiness go away without realizing that he was the problem, but it didn't make him any less of a self-absorbed ass hat in his interactions with other people. There are plenty of folks who manage to live with being depressed without taking it out on literally everyone who tries to help them.
Well, really his folks are described and shown as slightly distant but not unloving. Him and his parents have no problem just drifting apart, but that was more a random example/reference to Elliot.
But anyway, magic doesn't get him the girl. He does that. Living his fantasy isn't what fixes his life. Magic doesn't make him feel fulfilled because magic can't get him the things he actually needs from life. Fulfilling his fantasies never makes him a better person. He gets permanent, effortless wealth, but nothing to really do with it. It can't buy him anything he actually wants. He describes New York as a desert. He can't bury himself in material wealth and fix how he feels. (in that sense, you can look at it as a sort of "getting rich doesn't fulfill your life" type story, although it's more about our fantasies in general)
It wasn't that nothing was as good as he wanted, it's that none of it is actually what he needed. He jumps from fantasy to fantasy to escape his problems and it doesn't work. He's very passive that way. He runs off into a new thing and just sort expects it all to work and for happiness to just drop on his head while he sits and waits.
And he doesn't take it out on everyone trying to help him. He only really hurts one person near him. He's just not mature enough to know what to do about his problems.
I think the reason he bothers me is that from page one, he reminds me of myself at that age...but then seems to go nowhere despite having the fucking world handed to him on a platter. He gets everything most people could dream of, over and over, and repeatedly follows it by bitching and moaning and being miserable. He's the kind of person I'd want nothing whatsoever to do with, making him annoying to read about. It didn't help that none of the other characters were likable either.
That's kinda the point of the book. Getting "everything you ever dreamed of" doesn't fix you. Being a magician doesn't get you a girl or make your parents love you or make you a more mature person. You see this with everyone. Quentin is always looking for the next thing to come along and fix him. The next fantasy to make his life all better. When shit doesn't work out perfectly, Quentin tries to run away to something new. That's what I like about the characterization. Quentin is unfiltered to the reader. He's petty and selfish in the same ways everyone is sometimes.
In fact, the overall pointlessness of magic is a point of the book. Look at Alice's parents or the group after they all graduate as the perfect example. Magic doesn't fix any of their problems or give them any direction in life or much of anything. And absent purpose or direction or need of anything, they turn self-destructive.
But his parents did love him and he did get the girl. He also got the fantasy life he wanted and permanent, effortless wealth. It just wasn't good enough for him because he was either chemically imbalanced or a little shit. The fantasy wasn't fantastical enough. The girl he got wasn't exciting enough. The career opportunities opened up by his skill for magic weren't interesting enough for him. Nothing he got was as good as he wanted it to be.
Magic didn't make him happy not because it was pointless. It didn't make him happy because nothing was going to make him happy. It's not an unrealistic personality--plenty of real people are like that--but it's not one that you see a lot in fiction. Being depressed sucks and watching someone be depressed sucks. I felt bad for him because he kept expecting external factors to make his unhappiness go away without realizing that he was the problem, but it didn't make him any less of a self-absorbed ass hat in his interactions with other people. There are plenty of folks who manage to live with being depressed without taking it out on literally everyone who tries to help them.
Well, really his folks are described and shown as slightly distant but not unloving. Him and his parents have no problem just drifting apart, but that was more a random example/reference to Elliot.
But anyway, magic doesn't get him the girl. He does that. Living his fantasy isn't what fixes his life. Magic doesn't make him feel fulfilled because magic can't get him the things he actually needs from life. Fulfilling his fantasies never makes him a better person. He gets permanent, effortless wealth, but nothing to really do with it. It can't buy him anything he actually wants. He describes New York as a desert. He can't bury himself in material wealth and fix how he feels. (in that sense, you can look at it as a sort of "getting rich doesn't fulfill your life" type story, although it's more about our fantasies in general)
It wasn't that nothing was as good as he wanted, it's that none of it is actually what he needed. He jumps from fantasy to fantasy to escape his problems and it doesn't work. He's very passive that way. He runs off into a new thing and just sort expects it all to work and for happiness to just drop on his head while he sits and waits.
And he doesn't take it out on everyone trying to help him. He only really hurts one person near him. He's just not mature enough to know what to do about his problems.
He's kind of a jerk to his parents, too, and very much one to several of his friends. He pushes away or villifies almost everyone in his life at some point. He may not actually hurt them or even let them know how he feels, but being privy to his thoughts we can see that he's got a pretty low opinion of almost everyone eventually. Not that some of them don't deserve it.
I'm not sure where our difference of opinion is. You appear to agree with me about almost all of the details but somehow I'm drawing the conclusion that Quentin is an unpleasant, self-centered character while you feel that he's just an average young adult. Maybe I have a higher opinion of young adults or something. He gets better in the second book, at any rate.
I think the reason he bothers me is that from page one, he reminds me of myself at that age...but then seems to go nowhere despite having the fucking world handed to him on a platter. He gets everything most people could dream of, over and over, and repeatedly follows it by bitching and moaning and being miserable. He's the kind of person I'd want nothing whatsoever to do with, making him annoying to read about. It didn't help that none of the other characters were likable either.
That's kinda the point of the book. Getting "everything you ever dreamed of" doesn't fix you. Being a magician doesn't get you a girl or make your parents love you or make you a more mature person. You see this with everyone. Quentin is always looking for the next thing to come along and fix him. The next fantasy to make his life all better. When shit doesn't work out perfectly, Quentin tries to run away to something new. That's what I like about the characterization. Quentin is unfiltered to the reader. He's petty and selfish in the same ways everyone is sometimes.
In fact, the overall pointlessness of magic is a point of the book. Look at Alice's parents or the group after they all graduate as the perfect example. Magic doesn't fix any of their problems or give them any direction in life or much of anything. And absent purpose or direction or need of anything, they turn self-destructive.
But his parents did love him and he did get the girl. He also got the fantasy life he wanted and permanent, effortless wealth. It just wasn't good enough for him because he was either chemically imbalanced or a little shit. The fantasy wasn't fantastical enough. The girl he got wasn't exciting enough. The career opportunities opened up by his skill for magic weren't interesting enough for him. Nothing he got was as good as he wanted it to be.
Magic didn't make him happy not because it was pointless. It didn't make him happy because nothing was going to make him happy. It's not an unrealistic personality--plenty of real people are like that--but it's not one that you see a lot in fiction. Being depressed sucks and watching someone be depressed sucks. I felt bad for him because he kept expecting external factors to make his unhappiness go away without realizing that he was the problem, but it didn't make him any less of a self-absorbed ass hat in his interactions with other people. There are plenty of folks who manage to live with being depressed without taking it out on literally everyone who tries to help them.
Well, really his folks are described and shown as slightly distant but not unloving. Him and his parents have no problem just drifting apart, but that was more a random example/reference to Elliot.
But anyway, magic doesn't get him the girl. He does that. Living his fantasy isn't what fixes his life. Magic doesn't make him feel fulfilled because magic can't get him the things he actually needs from life. Fulfilling his fantasies never makes him a better person. He gets permanent, effortless wealth, but nothing to really do with it. It can't buy him anything he actually wants. He describes New York as a desert. He can't bury himself in material wealth and fix how he feels. (in that sense, you can look at it as a sort of "getting rich doesn't fulfill your life" type story, although it's more about our fantasies in general)
It wasn't that nothing was as good as he wanted, it's that none of it is actually what he needed. He jumps from fantasy to fantasy to escape his problems and it doesn't work. He's very passive that way. He runs off into a new thing and just sort expects it all to work and for happiness to just drop on his head while he sits and waits.
And he doesn't take it out on everyone trying to help him. He only really hurts one person near him. He's just not mature enough to know what to do about his problems.
He's kind of a jerk to his parents, too, and very much one to several of his friends. He pushes away or villifies almost everyone in his life at some point. He may not actually hurt them or even let them know how he feels, but being privy to his thoughts we can see that he's got a pretty low opinion of almost everyone eventually. Not that some of them don't deserve it.
I'm not sure where our difference of opinion is. You appear to agree with me about almost all of the details but somehow I'm drawing the conclusion that Quentin is an unpleasant, self-centered character while you feel that he's just an average young adult. Maybe I have a higher opinion of young adults or something. He gets better in the second book, at any rate.
It's probably that I don't agree with this statement at all.
He drifts away from his parents, but they never seemed close to begin with. It's kinda bad, but I find it hard to care since there's no investment in the relationship on their part either from what we see or he says.
I don't know which friends he's a jerk too, although he's a bad boyfriend at a few points. And I wouldn't say he's got a low opinion of his friends, he's just fully capable of judging them on what he perceives as their inadequacies. None of this is out of line for anyone I've ever met.
I don't see where you get unpleasant or self-centred from. Ok, maybe he's a bit self-centred, but not that badly.
I never read the second book, but I'm with CptHamilton on this one. Holden Quintin is dangerously close to the very definition of a douche. It's right there in his name!
I know I am terribly late to the party but I just finished Neuromancer and holy shit what a book. How I went this long without anyone mentioning it to me being as big a fan of Sci-Fi as I am is a mystery. Also went ahead and knocked out Pattern Recognition while I was reading that author anyways. Not sure what is up next. Might just reread The Hobbit since the movie just came out and I have no urge to see it.
I know I am terribly late to the party but I just finished Neuromancer and holy shit what a book. How I went this long without anyone mentioning it to me being as big a fan of Sci-Fi as I am is a mystery. Also went ahead and knocked out Pattern Recognition while I was reading that author anyways. Not sure what is up next. Might just reread The Hobbit since the movie just came out and I have no urge to see it.
Count Zero follows on from Neuromancer, followed by Mona Lisa Overdrive. The second two books have different sub-themes though. Anyway they're both excellent.
It's perfectly normal to want to re-buy some books because they're from a different publisher and you want the covers to match in the shelf, right?
Yes. I also rebuy books if they're released as part of a set of numbered classics because having a gap is unacceptable. I think I had three copies of some Fritz Lieber books at one point before I gave one set away.
Cyberpunk, also known as Radical Hard SF or The Movement, was born around 1980 and didn’t survive that decade. (Some people map the end to 1992, with Neal Stephenson’s SNOW CRASH.) Philip K Dick had no affiliation with the movement, and was dead by 1982, two years before William Gibson published NEUROMANCER. People tend to associate Dick with cyberpunk because of BLADE RUNNER, particularly its visuals, which had nothing to do with the novel, but were so strikingly of the speculative zeitgeist that in 1982 William Gibson had to get out of his cinema seat and leave the screening because it looked too much like what was in his head.
Cyberpunk, also known as Radical Hard SF or The Movement, was born around 1980 and didn’t survive that decade. (Some people map the end to 1992, with Neal Stephenson’s SNOW CRASH.) Philip K Dick had no affiliation with the movement, and was dead by 1982, two years before William Gibson published NEUROMANCER. People tend to associate Dick with cyberpunk because of BLADE RUNNER, particularly its visuals, which had nothing to do with the novel, but were so strikingly of the speculative zeitgeist that in 1982 William Gibson had to get out of his cinema seat and leave the screening because it looked too much like what was in his head.
Thanks for reminding me to watch Blade Runner again sometime soon. It's been a few years.
It always surprises me when I watch it how well the effects and visual theme stands up against the CGI tech we have 30 years later.
Oh and that it's a science fiction film with, you know, a real story and powerful acting and everything. James Cameron, I'm looking at you.
I'm reading through the Harry Potter books for the first time. Granted, being on the internet over the past ten years has spoiled a ton of plot points, but I'm enjoying the hell out of them. I think I read the first five in a little under a week.
I may have to immediately re-read them to catch all of the subtle (and not-so-subtle) foreshadowing. This is such a treat.
Sometimes I've repurchased books I love so that I have a "better" copy. What I usually do is give away my original copy, since it's easy to advocate others reading a book I loved. For example, I have a copy of Suttree and a copy of Cloud Atlas that are just basic trade paperback, and I've been lending them out as much as possible. If they get wrecked up or people continue to lend them, I'm OK with that because it lets me buy a "nice" version of them.
Cyberpunk, also known as Radical Hard SF or The Movement, was born around 1980 and didn’t survive that decade. (Some people map the end to 1992, with Neal Stephenson’s SNOW CRASH.) Philip K Dick had no affiliation with the movement, and was dead by 1982, two years before William Gibson published NEUROMANCER. People tend to associate Dick with cyberpunk because of BLADE RUNNER, particularly its visuals, which had nothing to do with the novel, but were so strikingly of the speculative zeitgeist that in 1982 William Gibson had to get out of his cinema seat and leave the screening because it looked too much like what was in his head.
I kinda liked that, but it really wasn't much of a summary. He described when, and who was primarily involved. Didn't really describe the genre at all.
Cyberpunk, also known as Radical Hard SF or The Movement, was born around 1980 and didn’t survive that decade. (Some people map the end to 1992, with Neal Stephenson’s SNOW CRASH.) Philip K Dick had no affiliation with the movement, and was dead by 1982, two years before William Gibson published NEUROMANCER. People tend to associate Dick with cyberpunk because of BLADE RUNNER, particularly its visuals, which had nothing to do with the novel, but were so strikingly of the speculative zeitgeist that in 1982 William Gibson had to get out of his cinema seat and leave the screening because it looked too much like what was in his head.
I kinda liked that, but it really wasn't much of a summary. He described when, and who was primarily involved. Didn't really describe the genre at all.
Cyberpunk only really makes sense if you were out and doing stuff in the early 80s.
Cyberpunk, also known as Radical Hard SF or The Movement, was born around 1980 and didn’t survive that decade. (Some people map the end to 1992, with Neal Stephenson’s SNOW CRASH.) Philip K Dick had no affiliation with the movement, and was dead by 1982, two years before William Gibson published NEUROMANCER. People tend to associate Dick with cyberpunk because of BLADE RUNNER, particularly its visuals, which had nothing to do with the novel, but were so strikingly of the speculative zeitgeist that in 1982 William Gibson had to get out of his cinema seat and leave the screening because it looked too much like what was in his head.
I kinda liked that, but it really wasn't much of a summary. He described when, and who was primarily involved. Didn't really describe the genre at all.
Cyberpunk only really makes sense if you were out and doing stuff in the early 80s.
I dunno, I was born in '79 and I don't find cyberpunk obtuse. It's just a marriage of the grungy, dystopian future that's still pretty popular in media with the social and technological outlook of the '80's, which was still relatively prevalent in the 90's and early 2000's. I imagine it would be pretty difficult to penetrate for someone born in the mid-90's but if you can remember the era before the mainstreaming of the internet you can probably get cyberpunk. A lot of the social stuff is still basically relevant today.
Cyberpunk, also known as Radical Hard SF or The Movement, was born around 1980 and didn’t survive that decade. (Some people map the end to 1992, with Neal Stephenson’s SNOW CRASH.) Philip K Dick had no affiliation with the movement, and was dead by 1982, two years before William Gibson published NEUROMANCER. People tend to associate Dick with cyberpunk because of BLADE RUNNER, particularly its visuals, which had nothing to do with the novel, but were so strikingly of the speculative zeitgeist that in 1982 William Gibson had to get out of his cinema seat and leave the screening because it looked too much like what was in his head.
I kinda liked that, but it really wasn't much of a summary. He described when, and who was primarily involved. Didn't really describe the genre at all.
Cyberpunk only really makes sense if you were out and doing stuff in the early 80s.
I dunno, I was born in '79 and I don't find cyberpunk obtuse. It's just a marriage of the grungy, dystopian future that's still pretty popular in media with the social and technological outlook of the '80's, which was still relatively prevalent in the 90's and early 2000's. I imagine it would be pretty difficult to penetrate for someone born in the mid-90's but if you can remember the era before the mainstreaming of the internet you can probably get cyberpunk. A lot of the social stuff is still basically relevant today.
There's a bit more to it than that; there were also psycho-social effects like the very very immanent threat of nuclear destruction, a massive world recession, the hollowing out of the heavy industries of the West, punk, new romantics (There's a massive New Romantic influence in cyberpunk aesthetic themes), the radical change in the balance of power between labor and capital... I'm not saying you won't get anything, I'm just saying you won't get everything.
Cyberpunk, also known as Radical Hard SF or The Movement, was born around 1980 and didn’t survive that decade. (Some people map the end to 1992, with Neal Stephenson’s SNOW CRASH.) Philip K Dick had no affiliation with the movement, and was dead by 1982, two years before William Gibson published NEUROMANCER. People tend to associate Dick with cyberpunk because of BLADE RUNNER, particularly its visuals, which had nothing to do with the novel, but were so strikingly of the speculative zeitgeist that in 1982 William Gibson had to get out of his cinema seat and leave the screening because it looked too much like what was in his head.
I kinda liked that, but it really wasn't much of a summary. He described when, and who was primarily involved. Didn't really describe the genre at all.
Cyberpunk only really makes sense if you were out and doing stuff in the early 80s.
I dunno, I was born in '79 and I don't find cyberpunk obtuse. It's just a marriage of the grungy, dystopian future that's still pretty popular in media with the social and technological outlook of the '80's, which was still relatively prevalent in the 90's and early 2000's. I imagine it would be pretty difficult to penetrate for someone born in the mid-90's but if you can remember the era before the mainstreaming of the internet you can probably get cyberpunk. A lot of the social stuff is still basically relevant today.
There's a bit more to it than that; there were also psycho-social effects like the very very immanent threat of nuclear destruction, a massive world recession, the hollowing out of the heavy industries of the West, punk, new romantics (There's a massive New Romantic influence in cyberpunk aesthetic themes), the radical change in the balance of power between labor and capital... I'm not saying you won't get anything, I'm just saying you won't get everything.
The only things in that list that arent relevant today are punk and new romantics.
I think the reason he bothers me is that from page one, he reminds me of myself at that age...but then seems to go nowhere despite having the fucking world handed to him on a platter. He gets everything most people could dream of, over and over, and repeatedly follows it by bitching and moaning and being miserable. He's the kind of person I'd want nothing whatsoever to do with, making him annoying to read about. It didn't help that none of the other characters were likable either.
That's kinda the point of the book. Getting "everything you ever dreamed of" doesn't fix you. Being a magician doesn't get you a girl or make your parents love you or make you a more mature person. You see this with everyone. Quentin is always looking for the next thing to come along and fix him. The next fantasy to make his life all better. When shit doesn't work out perfectly, Quentin tries to run away to something new. That's what I like about the characterization. Quentin is unfiltered to the reader. He's petty and selfish in the same ways everyone is sometimes.
In fact, the overall pointlessness of magic is a point of the book. Look at Alice's parents or the group after they all graduate as the perfect example. Magic doesn't fix any of their problems or give them any direction in life or much of anything. And absent purpose or direction or need of anything, they turn self-destructive.
But his parents did love him and he did get the girl. He also got the fantasy life he wanted and permanent, effortless wealth. It just wasn't good enough for him because he was either chemically imbalanced or a little shit. The fantasy wasn't fantastical enough. The girl he got wasn't exciting enough. The career opportunities opened up by his skill for magic weren't interesting enough for him. Nothing he got was as good as he wanted it to be.
Magic didn't make him happy not because it was pointless. It didn't make him happy because nothing was going to make him happy. It's not an unrealistic personality--plenty of real people are like that--but it's not one that you see a lot in fiction. Being depressed sucks and watching someone be depressed sucks. I felt bad for him because he kept expecting external factors to make his unhappiness go away without realizing that he was the problem, but it didn't make him any less of a self-absorbed ass hat in his interactions with other people. There are plenty of folks who manage to live with being depressed without taking it out on literally everyone who tries to help them.
You should read the second book, iirc it ends up with him having grown up a bit more even if that isn't the main point of the book.
On another note, the entire theme of the magicians and how magic doesn't really fix anything at all, it actually makes being a decent person harder is pretty awesome in my opinion.
Frozenzen on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Posts
Well, really his folks are described and shown as slightly distant but not unloving. Him and his parents have no problem just drifting apart, but that was more a random example/reference to Elliot.
But anyway, magic doesn't get him the girl. He does that. Living his fantasy isn't what fixes his life. Magic doesn't make him feel fulfilled because magic can't get him the things he actually needs from life. Fulfilling his fantasies never makes him a better person. He gets permanent, effortless wealth, but nothing to really do with it. It can't buy him anything he actually wants. He describes New York as a desert. He can't bury himself in material wealth and fix how he feels. (in that sense, you can look at it as a sort of "getting rich doesn't fulfill your life" type story, although it's more about our fantasies in general)
It wasn't that nothing was as good as he wanted, it's that none of it is actually what he needed. He jumps from fantasy to fantasy to escape his problems and it doesn't work. He's very passive that way. He runs off into a new thing and just sort expects it all to work and for happiness to just drop on his head while he sits and waits.
And he doesn't take it out on everyone trying to help him. He only really hurts one person near him. He's just not mature enough to know what to do about his problems.
He's kind of a jerk to his parents, too, and very much one to several of his friends. He pushes away or villifies almost everyone in his life at some point. He may not actually hurt them or even let them know how he feels, but being privy to his thoughts we can see that he's got a pretty low opinion of almost everyone eventually. Not that some of them don't deserve it.
I'm not sure where our difference of opinion is. You appear to agree with me about almost all of the details but somehow I'm drawing the conclusion that Quentin is an unpleasant, self-centered character while you feel that he's just an average young adult. Maybe I have a higher opinion of young adults or something. He gets better in the second book, at any rate.
It's probably that I don't agree with this statement at all.
He drifts away from his parents, but they never seemed close to begin with. It's kinda bad, but I find it hard to care since there's no investment in the relationship on their part either from what we see or he says.
I don't know which friends he's a jerk too, although he's a bad boyfriend at a few points. And I wouldn't say he's got a low opinion of his friends, he's just fully capable of judging them on what he perceives as their inadequacies. None of this is out of line for anyone I've ever met.
I don't see where you get unpleasant or self-centred from. Ok, maybe he's a bit self-centred, but not that badly.
PSN:Furlion
But the soldier in white is in an unresolved state!
Count Zero follows on from Neuromancer, followed by Mona Lisa Overdrive. The second two books have different sub-themes though. Anyway they're both excellent.
Sure!
NO.
Yes. I also rebuy books if they're released as part of a set of numbered classics because having a gap is unacceptable. I think I had three copies of some Fritz Lieber books at one point before I gave one set away.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Thanks for reminding me to watch Blade Runner again sometime soon. It's been a few years.
It always surprises me when I watch it how well the effects and visual theme stands up against the CGI tech we have 30 years later.
Oh and that it's a science fiction film with, you know, a real story and powerful acting and everything. James Cameron, I'm looking at you.
Unless your book budget allows you to have already bought every book you want to read, then no.
I may have to immediately re-read them to catch all of the subtle (and not-so-subtle) foreshadowing. This is such a treat.
Yes. Matching in the shelf is very important.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
I kinda liked that, but it really wasn't much of a summary. He described when, and who was primarily involved. Didn't really describe the genre at all.
Cyberpunk only really makes sense if you were out and doing stuff in the early 80s.
I dunno, I was born in '79 and I don't find cyberpunk obtuse. It's just a marriage of the grungy, dystopian future that's still pretty popular in media with the social and technological outlook of the '80's, which was still relatively prevalent in the 90's and early 2000's. I imagine it would be pretty difficult to penetrate for someone born in the mid-90's but if you can remember the era before the mainstreaming of the internet you can probably get cyberpunk. A lot of the social stuff is still basically relevant today.
There's a bit more to it than that; there were also psycho-social effects like the very very immanent threat of nuclear destruction, a massive world recession, the hollowing out of the heavy industries of the West, punk, new romantics (There's a massive New Romantic influence in cyberpunk aesthetic themes), the radical change in the balance of power between labor and capital... I'm not saying you won't get anything, I'm just saying you won't get everything.
The only things in that list that arent relevant today are punk and new romantics.
You should read the second book, iirc it ends up with him having grown up a bit more even if that isn't the main point of the book.
On another note, the entire theme of the magicians and how magic doesn't really fix anything at all, it actually makes being a decent person harder is pretty awesome in my opinion.