Flirting with Disaster: William Gibson's Name-Game in "Johnny Mnemonic"

William Gibson's short story "Johnny Mnemonic" baits its readers by initiating associations through combinations of misleading signs. By using certain words that hold different cultural connotations, Gibson directs the readers into a false sense of linguistic security before letting the context and the mythical possibilities sink in to form a more complete picture of the whole. Gibson, as a pseudo-mythologist, invokes a feeling of connection between the receiver of the sign and the divulging of the myth. One such example occurs in the first line of the story. Gibson writes of the Adidas bag that Johnny is carrying (1). At first, this name bears the baggage of twentieth-century consumer culture. "Adidas" itself is the Saussurian sign; the signifier is the bag and the signified is the concept of what a bag is. After the reader identifies what the bag is by connecting its name to its function, the myth identification begins.

The "Adidas" becomes the new signifier in the second model language and the new signified becomes what the proper name of Adidas implies: a reputation for quality material. This produces the myth of Consumer Icon, where the proper name, although not associated entirely with one product but with an intrinsic value, signifies something beyond the initial Saussurian concept. What happens then to this new sign? Gibson turns it on its head with a stronger description of the bag on the following page. Johnny Mnemonic self-narrates his way through the bar and describes the Adidas bag as "his professionally nondescript gym bag" (2). At this point in the future, Adidas no longer signifies what twentieth-century readers would attribute to it, but rather creates a new meaning in this historical period.

This departs from Barthes's theory of myth when he posits that "In it [myth], history evaporates" (Barthes 151). Here, the myth behind the bag's proper name dissipates beneath the heat of the cultural evolution of the term. Although, the word "Adidas" still holds some value as a certain kind of product from the twentieth century, but in the year that the story takes place the name "Adidas" takes on a new mythology, one of "nondescript" consumer product. This also occurs with names such as "Sony Mao" (1), which plays on the Japanese electronics company Sony and also on the Maoist movement. By linking large corporation with a working class movement, Gibson leads the reader to form a new mythology in a new historical context. Also, as Johnny admits, those who could steal information could "Watergate you" (10). This points to a certain mythology associated with underhanded government tactics. In other words, "Watergate" would mean little outside of an historical perspective.

So, what does this do for the narrative? Or, conversely, what doesn't this do for the narrative? Gibson, by confusing the reader with different and new perceptions of mythology, creates a barrier for the reader to overcome. At first this alienates the reader from the narrative, but after by overcoming the linguistic and interpretive barrier, the reader comes into the "know." The reader is now part of an elite group that understands a new language and a new mythology, but it comes at a price; the price being the initial readability of the narrative. On the other hand, Gibson also avoids unnecessary or long-winded description of certain societal aspects by forcing the reader to be slightly more involved in the decryption of the text. Simply put, Gibson is able to streamline his narrative, making it much more fast paced, and increasingly more like the information that is passed in the fictional world he created: compressed and efficient.