Slashdot Mirror


Neal Stephenson's The Confusion Released

Jon Lasser writes "Neal Stephenson's 'The Confusion', second volume of his Baroque Cycle is released today. I received an advance copy and have a book review up here. The hypertext site for the trilogy is here. The short review: if you liked 'Quicksilver', this one is better; if you didn't, don't bother."

16 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver by dmh20002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I loved Cryptonomicon. It was a page turner all the way through. I got bored with Quicksilver half way thru. I liked the parts that involved Newton and other real scientists, but when the fictional characters went off on their own it got complicated and boring. I never finished it.

    thats probably just me.

    1. Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Cryptonomicon was kind of destined to become a hit. An outstanding writer who is a geek's geek geeking out on top geeky topics.

      The Baroque Cycle seems more like Neal exploring his own niche interests. Alchemy, the history of modern banking, etc. Makes think Neal might have been poking fun at himself with his choice of The Baroque Cycle as the trilogy title.

      Anyway, though not as immediately accessable as Cryptonomicon, it is a fascinating pleasure to experience a writer of Mr. Stephenson's caliber and style work through his own exploration of things that are:
      marked generally by use of complex forms, bold ornamentation, and the juxtaposition of contrasting elements often conveying a sense of drama, movement, and tension 2 : characterized by grotesqueness, extravagance, complexity, or flamboyance
      Go Neal. And thanks again!
      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    2. Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver by John+Harrison · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Neal's books don't end. They accelerate. Allow me to explain. Snowcrash, The Diamond Age, and Cryptonomicon all begin with very detailed explainations of the technology that the plot hinges on. Stephenson is actually pretty good at making this interesting, and he puts plenty of plot in while he does it.

      Once the tech is explained the story starts to move faster. It is as if the story is passing through Stephenson's mind faster and he isn't able to type fast enough to keep up. So as it accelerates the details that make it to the page are more and more sparse until there are no details or explainations left. That is when the book is over, since there is nothing to print on the next page as the pace of the book approaches infinity and he simply can type anything.

      Quicksilver seems to break the mold. It doesn't get faster and in fact just gets harder and harder to read. The pace at which I could read it got slower and slower until I was unable to read any more of it. I stopped (well, the velocity of my reading reached zero) about 300 pages from the end. This from a person that read Cryptonomicon in two sittings.

    3. Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Each to their own I guess. I like him partly because of the stuff you don't like. Things I know he relates in a humorous way, things I don't (bletchley park, etc etc) he makes fascinating. He bridges gaps for many who aren't the "digerati" that we profess to be. But the best part is none of that, nor the endings, nor the ideas, but the angle from which he explores those ideas, his turn of phrase, etc. Hmmmm... maybe his sense of humor is the key. He makes digging a mine shaft fun and interesting. I thing he could write a Star Office training manual that would make learning it a total hoot. And it would still be greatly enjoyed by those who know Star Office well. YMMV obviously.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
  2. book reviews, not links to book reviews by sdedeo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I thought the tradition for book reviews was for slashdot contributors to post their own, here. It would be disappointing if we forewent this to just post a link to somewhere else.

    Slashdot has a lot of interesting readers who, because they aren't tied up in the mostly non-functional reviewing world, can contribute interesting takes on whatever's come out. Online and off, most of the book reviews are either LCD "here is a book about stuff neither of us understand", or unmitigated love-ins where authors review each other in a mutual backscratch.

    I would hate to see people stop writing reviews for first post on slashdot, and I would hate to see slashdot stop supporting its own review culture.

    --
    Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
  3. I like Stephenson, BUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The boy is in need of a good editor. His 1000 page books are more like 500 page books with lots of flab.

    And the endings... they're usually so awful that I can almost feel the author cringing as he types. Its like he runs out of steam and then can't figure out an ending, so he says "oh, the diesel fuel burns and melts the gold". Its a total surrender to laziness.

    Maybe if he cut out the description of dive tables he could muster up the energy for a good ending.

  4. Why mention it at all? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're being completely disingenuous. It's a complete myth that everything in a novel needs to play a part in the 'story'. One could just as easily ask the question "why are you mentioning homosexuality when the books contain all sorts of othe rmaterial that aren't crucial to the story?". But that's an easy one to answer, you have a homophobia problem.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  5. It's called fleshing out a character by gclef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Writers are *supposed* to do this. Adding character traits (or, in this case, talking about real ones for real people) makes characters more "human", and more accessible. If your characters are nothing but foils for the plot, you end up with something like "Atlas Shrugged." Whatever you may think of the politics in Atlas Shrugged, the characters are painfully two-dimensional, and a beautiful example of how *not* to do character development. The point of adding extra details (like Randy's cereal-eating habits, or Turing's homosexuality) about a character is to make them closer to a living being.

  6. Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward spi by drdread · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Snowcrash, IMO, was one of the great works of our time. The same can not be said of Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver. Cryptonomicon suffered from endless diversions from the story, and the end was like the end of Monty Python & the Holy Grail or Matrix: Revolutions or so many other stories where the author did not have a start-to-finish vision of how the story would unfold. That is, the story just ended, with little meat or satisfaction for the reader.

    Quicksilver, honestly, was a burden to read. The story had its moments, but when you're 700 pages into a book and have little or no idea where it's going and little or no motivation to keep reading, I submit that the author has basically failed. I frequently felt like the author was writing just to "hear himself type." I'll probably read The Confusion just because I hate to leave thing unfinished, but if it's similarly burdensome, I think I'll just have to give up on Stephenson altogether.

    To the commenter who asked why Stephenson features gay characters and their homosexuality so prominently, all I can tell you is that Turing was, in fact, gay, and it was a major issue for him and for the people who worked around him. It's not surprising to me that any story on cryptography would feature Turing and his homosexuality. I can't say as much about Newton simply because I'm only familiar with the history of his work rather than the history of the man.

    Who ever said Stephenson needs an editor is right on. Quicksilver is a 300 or 400 page story told in 900 pages. Keeping the length down would do a great service towards making the thing more interesting and readable. But somehow I suspect that neither of these issues are high on Stephenson's list. :(

  7. Just don't read Snowcrash by aeoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I read Snowcrash as my first Neal Stephenson book. So I expected all his books to be like that. Wrong! Snowcrash is good but I hate everything else he writes. It is mind bogglingly boring and I don't think he has any insight whatsoever into relationships.

    Why do people like stuff like Cryptonomicon? I've read a hundred pages or so and I just couldn't take it. What's so exciting about Shaftoe? Who cares about riding on a ship? War? There is no action, no insight, no perspective, no intrigue, nothing. I mean, it's like pages and pages of nothing and nothing and nothing. Nothing happens. Characters are boring, average, shallow and do not do anything interesting. I mean, why don't I just put a web cam on a bus stop? Because it would be about as insightful and as exciting as any of Stephenson's books. I don't understand.

    What is exciting about these books? Is there some depth that I don't see? It's no Dune, that's for sure. Stephenson has no spiritual insight. So what is it?

    Even reading highly modded up posts here just blows me away!! Some guy read 300 pages that he thought were mediocre in order to get to the good parts!?!? You guys are crazy? Are you sure you're not reading the book because "Neal is cool" in the nerd culture? How can anyone stomach 300 pages of mundane mediocrity to get to the "good parts" later? I don't understand. I mean, even Neal's fans think he sucks. It's in plain sight here on Slashdot.

    I don't get it. :)

    1. Re:Just don't read Snowcrash by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've read a hundred pages or so (...) What's so exciting about Shaftoe?

      2 words: Giant Lizard.

      I don't get it.

      I know ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  8. Re:The problem with Stephenson is male-female dial by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and then his male protagonist tries to talk to a woman. And that is where his novels fall apart. His dialog does not ring true. Every conversation sounds contrived.

    Well, he writes geeks talking to hot girls...of COURSE the conversations sound contrived! ;-)

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  9. Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward by sketi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Snow Crash was a damn fine book, but as far as I'm concerned, Cryptonomicon is hands down Stephenson's best. 've never understood the complaints about Stephenson's endings, though. When the story's over, the book ends. That's the way it should be. I hate spending the last 50 pages of a book building up to some "satisfying" conclusion where everything gets tied up neatly into a perfect little Hollywood package.

    As for the length, if an editor had cut 300 pages from Cryptonomicon, it would have completely castrated the story. Quicksilver's about twice as long as it needs to be, but if forcing myself through 900 pages of Quicksilver is the price I have to pay for an intact Cryptonomicon, then so be it.

  10. Re:Newton was not homosexual by Xeger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Newton was not a homosexual, I agree.

    By the same token -- the careful consideration of historical evidence -- I must *disagree* with your statement about Shakespeare. William Shakespeare was almost certainly bisexual with a strong preference toward women. Consider that several of his sonnets are dedicated to a "Mr. W.H." and that his plays are rife with suggestive comments that, even if they give no information about the playwrite's sexuality, certainly suggest a familiarity with, and acceptance of, the idea of affection and sex between two males.

    You and I agree that the homosexual lobby tends to paint history pink, using great strokes of its broad brush to imply that everyone from Alexander the Great to J. Edgar Hoover was a mincing namby-pamby. You and I agree that they often arrive at incorrect conclusions -- the simple fact is that most people always have been and always will be straight, irrespective of how "politically correct" that notion is.

    As much as I agree with you, I still take exception to your post because you sound like an ignorant homophobe. You seem fixated on the belief that incorrectly identifying a historical figure as homosexual somehow is some sort of smear on his reputation. To me, that suggests some very narrow thinking on your part.

    I am white, with Aryan features. If someone walked up to me on the street and called me a nigger, I would certainly laugh due to their making an obvious factual error -- but I would not be ashamed. My reputation would not be destroyed. For me, there is no shame associated with being gay or black or Communist or vegetarian. If you think differently, then I suggest you reevaluate your thinking.

  11. Information by DrJAKing · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a common thread running through all Stephenson's books, a fascination with the history of information and how processing it has affected the development of human society and culture, from prehistory to the imaginable future. This is why he appeals so much to many geeks. Since Snowcrash, his breakthrough novel, he's been piecing together a remarkable perpective on the very essence of what makes humans special. The extent to which it is sometimes hard going just reflects what a difficult task it is, but the exploration is far-reaching and important. To those who couldn't hack Quicksilver, I say keep at it and instead of thinking of it as an entertainment, use it as a bunch of bookmarks to stuff that you should really know about.

  12. Why Neal Stephenson counts by bluetrident · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've mentioned this offhandedly before, but the reason I think that Neal Stephenson is amazing is because of what he is currently doing. He's gone from a 'eco-terrorist' to a cyberpunk writer. Then he took it a step further and became a New York Times Bestselling Author writing straight fiction.

    He's made a transition from scifi to fiction, but carried the tech along with it. 50 years from now, there's only going to be a few authors from this genre (scifi) that will still be read, and I believe that Stephenson will be one of those. He can tell a story, when he gets down to it. Why do people still read Phillip K. Dick? Why are there now movies being made from his stories? Because he can tell a story, in the end. Why is Stephenson still being posted here? Because his stories are good. He might get a bit bogged down in the details, but he's a great storyteller and that's why I'll start 'The Confusion' tomorrow and I can't wait for the 3rd part of trilogy. He's had some time to develop his skill, I'm guessing that the entire trilogy and 'Cryptonomicon' taken as a whole, will tell an entirely diffent story, taken altogether.

    Just my thoughts...