<human>: Give me the gist of the text in a nutshell

Neuromancer is a sci-fi classic and highly regarded, but many reviews say, and I agree, that it requires patience to get through. The top comment on Amazon says that reader put it down after the first chapter. I trudged through it at a rate of a few pages a day before just saying, Fuck it, I'll read it quickly or not at all. It took me two nights to read it the second time around. Overall it's a great story, and clearly a source of inspiration for *The Matrix*, a movie that was released sixteen years later. I'd describe it as a mix of that and *Blade Runner*, and hints once or twice at themes that were explored in *Inception*, even. It seems quite ahead of its time for 1983, portraying computer technology that still seems futuristic 30 years later, at a time when this technology barely existed.

However, the book is clumsily written, over relies on adjectives, jumps between settings and under-developed characters with little warning. It could be a legendary book in the hands of a more capable author, IMO. But overall, although I felt moderately satisfied with the ending, it wasn't an enjoyable read, even I daresay irritating at times.
<bot>: Neuromancer is a visionary sci-fi book, lavished with praise, but written weakly, and occasionally unsatisfying. Do you think it deserves its reputation? How did you like it?