The way I see Gibson's work, in particular Neuromancer, is basically as impressionism in novel form. If you look closely at any of the individual details you will become hopelessly lost and confused, however if you roll with that feeling and absorb the entire work you start to realize that his haphazard description and detail are, very effectively in my opinion, painting an incredibly vibrant image of a drab, desperate, and depressed society.
Compared to Gibson, I would describe Scott Card's work as very crisp high contrast paintings of stick figures. Easy reading, but really nothing of interest in the slightest if you are looking for more than just a plot. The XKCD of SF. (Also, I'd highly suggest sticking to the Ender series of books if you do insist on reading Scott Card. I made the mistake of reading A Memory of Earth without knowing what I was getting myself into first...)
For what it's worth, Gibson's Bridge trilogy is much more accessible than Neuromancer, though I can't say that I think he ever quite hit as high a note as Neuromancer.
Compared to Gibson, I would describe Scott Card's work as very crisp high contrast paintings of stick figures. Easy reading, but really nothing of interest in the slightest if you are looking for more than just a plot. The XKCD of SF. (Also, I'd highly suggest sticking to the Ender series of books if you do insist on reading Scott Card. I made the mistake of reading A Memory of Earth without knowing what I was getting myself into first...)
For what it's worth, Gibson's Bridge trilogy is much more accessible than Neuromancer, though I can't say that I think he ever quite hit as high a note as Neuromancer.