William Gibson's Idoru is a novel full of implications and extrapolations related to the imminent and (present) era of electronic para-reality. Stylistically it is far from perfect, but in theme it has a firm grip on the concept of simulacra as it imitates, masks and replaces reality. Gibson's characters are rarely depicted with great depth. While I strongly disagree with the statement that these are archetypes cut from a mold, I would still note that they are not particularly rich or personal. This probably comes from the author's writing style which is the radical end of the "show, don't tell" spectrum, so that we are shown the characters' past, physical state and present situations, and as readers we are left to guess the logical psychological conditions associated with such factors. Gibson has rich situations, not rich characters. That's why I find it so strange that the New York Times Book Review wrote, "Chia is one of [Gibson's] most winning creations." I can't understand the logic. It's as if by making her young and in a strange situation, we have to develop an immediate affinity with her. Now, obviously, Gibson himself doesn't decide whether his characters are strong or weak. So it's not a flaw on the part of his writing when a reader attributes an archetype to one of his characters, but I would tend to think that, whether by design or simple lack of skill, Gibson writes his characters a bit flatly. (Which, in the context of a discussion of simulacra, makes it all the more wryly ironic that book reviewers attribute what they would call a "hidden" level to the quality of writing not otherwise evident.) Another stylistic device employed by Gibson is been ......middle of paper ......and ultimately defines reality? It was simply a computer, just as Idoru was simply a novel. Yet the shells made in that case serve to create a fantasy as quickly and importantly as the words on paper serve to create a reality (and, paradoxically, the reality in which those shells existed). Simply because each is not real, it is not so. they interrupt the validity of their creations, because if that were true, then the shells would never have existed, not even in our minds. Gibson gets this intimately, and Idoru does a great job of illustrating it. While it isn't technically perfect, it is effective and creates an image that is useful to learn from. Works cited and consulted: Gibson, William. Neuromancer. (Ace Books: New York 1984)_____, Idoru. (Berkeley Books: New York 1996)