By content and the originality I meant the writing style, the narration, not the original things that a writer puts in all by himself. I guess I used the wrong reference for my point. Apologies!
The Neuromancer, the time it was written is for me an extraordinary thing as a technology enthusiast. The concept is a reality nowadays, don’t know how much of it was practical back in 1984.

I agree that a story can be… less than perfect, but be of exceedingly rich creativity, but I disagree that such originality makes up for the poor prose. I will have to give Neuromancer a skim, however, if it is as creative as you say.

I did get your Tolkien point. I felt same about science fiction until I started reading books in that genre and observed even though content is not good enough, sometimes, the imagination used by the writer is tremendous. I remember reading Wilson Gibson Neuromancer, the story was plain, slow but the quality of the idea was tempting. I think the idea SciFi/Fantasy books present to a reader is they are all about, in average cases.

Well, I use Tolkien just to generalize high fantasy, which is magic and otherworldly creatures like dragons. Most of the high fantasy I’ve read felt as though it could all fit in the same universe (ie. unoriginal).

That may because I do not read enough, but it has kept me from relatively reluctant to read much of the genre.

I am not that experienced either with elves, and magic or Tolkien. Well every fantasy can’t be Tolkien and I love the fact that a genre in itself can be so diverse with different elements. Not necessarily magic.

I actually picked up the Mistborn series. I write “fantasy”, but not Tolkien. In truth, I find it rather silly (elves and magic and whatnot). Mistborn is just that, but I am not… hating it.

That’s true. That happens. I have seen. Well good luck for your readings this year. You picked up anything yet?

Never! All literature should be cherished, otherwise I will never end up GETTING read! Hah, hah, hah!