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."
Maybe it was a Kill Bill style 'why not make them buy it three times?' marketing move.
Almost all of book two, where Shaftoe makes an entry, is really good so far. I like Stephenson's way of telling a story. He is good at describing the dynamics of inter-personal relationships and he uses a geeky sort of language that is really funny.
When there's a story to be told, Neal Stephenson is a great writer, when not, you just want to kick him real hard. (Still he is not as bad as le'Carre, who has a nasty habit of drowning good plots in the kind of drawn out, mediocre, masturbatory adjective-slinging, twaddle that my teachers were so fond of.
Still, Quicksilver was seems worth reading now that I'm a bit over half way through, and I have already ordered "The Confusion".
I just hope that the Baroque Cycle has an ending so, like "The young lady's primer", it doesn't just come to a screeching halt like a bad B-movie run out of money.
That more people didn't like Quicksilver. I thought it was excellent and am really looking forward to reading the Confusion. Since I don't know much about European history, the history itself made the book very interesting.
I've seen a number of posters commenting on the weightiness of Cryptonomicon and Quicksilver (which I have yet to read).
If you are not familiar with Stephenson and want a brief introduction, I recommend Zodiac. It's a quick, entertaining page-turner that can be read in one sitting but still gives you a pretty good feel for his writing.
Sort of like Neal Stephenson Lite
The Dalai Llama
... absolutely loved Interface and didn't find out Stephenson wrote it until a month ago on /. ...
My sig could be your sig!
Given that Daniel Waterhouse's Puritan upbringing and steadfast devoutness in the face of his peers' all-but-secularism is one of the defining aspects of his personality, I would say that Stephenson does a rather fair job of doting on Christianity.
Compared to speculations about Newton's sexuality (which are limited to a few vague hints scattered throughout the book), Waterhouse's faith virtually drives the plot. His mentor is a bishop who believes that the established church is heresy -- that one should be free to worship as he sees fit, unhampered by politics. Many of Waterhouse's misadventures are due to his similar beliefs. Most characters in Quicksilver are devout Christians, even some of the homosexuals (viz Leibniz).
If you read Stephenson's earlier work, you'll see a repeated theme of tolerant, unperturbed spirituality in his stronger characters. Juanita from Snow Crash is a devout Catholic -- she shuns organized religion because she believes most of it is politicized claptrap designed to control the masses -- but she is Christian nonetheless. She and her unswerving faith ultimately play a principal role in the book.
If Stephenson goes out of his way to illustrate Turing's homosexuality, or Newton's probable bisexuality, it is merely to shed more light on areas of human experience that have been ignored by history.
For 2,000 years, Christians have had a rich mythology that teaches them valuable lessons on life and gives them a slew of inspiring role-models. For 1,500 years, Christianity has been the accepted "normal" religion throughout most of the developed world; often it is even sanctioned as the state religion. Until very recently, Christians have been constantly reinforced by unanimous, positive feedback from the community, the state and the church that yes, they are good and right and are going to Heaven.
In the same time period, homosexuals have had little or no public acknowledgement of their existence: no role models, and certainly no acceptance from society. In several places and times during the past thousand years, homosexuals have been tormented, imprisoned, tortured and murdered merely for being who they are. Christians had to endure this suffering at first, but by the time of the Spanish Inquisition it was Christians doing the burning and torturing.
I live in southern California, in a city whose populace largely identify themselves as liberals. Just the same, not 18 months ago, a gay man in my neighborhood was doused in gasoline burned alive as he slept by a Catholic man who had befriended my neighbor before discovering his sexuality. Bigotry, hate and intolerance toward homosexuals are very much alive today, and much of it comes from people who call themselves "good" Christians.
In summary: if Stephenson chooses to showcase homosexuality slightly more than Christianity, perhaps he's merely acknowledging the fact that Christianity has already been showcased enough.
"I realize that my views are probably in the minority here, but techno-fiction appeals to more than just liberal readers, and I wish Stephenson would realize that."
Funny. I'd have thought Stephenson would have annoyed more liberals than conservatives with this passage from Chapter 65:
To translate it into UNIX system administration terms (Randy's fundamental metaphor for just about everything), the post-modern, politically correct atheists were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz, society) with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because they were at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they saw as the norm. Whereas people who were wired into a church were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not understand everything, at least had some documentation, some FAQs and How-tos and README files, providing some guidance on what to do when things got out of whack. They were, in other words, capable of displaying adaptability.
One would think he is pushing his own brand of Church philosophy here. Or is he merely putting himself in the shoes of Randy Waterhouse?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Why, exactly, do you care if a character in a novel is portrayed as a homosexual? Does it offend your sensibilities to know that such people exist? Why? I think you are reading your bible a little too selectively; try to find that part about "judge not, lest ye be judged", and "do unto others...".
To say that Stephenson "advertises" for homosexuality is a gross mischaracterization. Turing was, in fact, a homosexual, a fact which turned the life of this brilliant man (the man who contributed more to the defeat of the Nazis than any other individual), into a sorrowful tragedy for which the British government ought to be eternally ashamed of itself. Alan Turing was a Hero. He was also gay.
And since you say that Stephenson doesn't pay similar attention to Christian characters, I guess you didn't actually *read* Quicksilver, did you? If you had, you would of course know that the central character (Daniel Waterhouse) was not only a Christian, his religion (and that of his family) plays a central role in the events of the book. Not that an author has any obligation to you or anyone else to maintain some kind of ridiculous "equal time" balance in the sociopolitical aspects of its characters.
And what does being liberal or conservative have to do with one's ability to accept a homosexual character in a novel? I doubt that all conservatives are as ignorant and intolerant as you are. I find it totally absurd that you regard the presence of a homosexual character as a "political" statement.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
This is one of the ways publishers maintain a lock on intellectual culture. The last time I reviewed a book (in a small, but influential journal), I walked into my local university bookstore and lots of hell broke loose. I got plenty of compliments as well, but it was interesting to note that the same people who frowned at me for criticising their friend were also in control of either the distribution of review copies, or the management of the book review section.
If I have a choice between trolls and backscratchers, I'll take the trolls with a side of relish please. Slashdot has a great thing going with their book reviews, but if people notice that Slashdot is "scooping" them by publishing insider accounts, or ignoring their labor in favour of linking to an outside newspaper, they will eventually get bored and tired and stop writing.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
Cryptonomicon was kind of destined to become a hit. An outstanding writer who is a geek's geek geeking out on top geeky topics.
It was destined to become a hit among twenty-something geeks who live in Silicon Valley and have no life outside of their job. As a twenty-something geek living in Austin with a rich life, I found it to be agonizingly badly written.
You don't need to explain linux, or PGP, to a geek. You certainly don't need to put thirty pages of exposition about linux where thirty pages of story should be. A geek with no appreciation of good writing may appreciate reading hundreds of pages of stuff he already knows as if it's some clue that he's in the "in crowd", but for many of us, that's drivel.
And what in the hell kind of an ending was that? In the beginning and middle of the story I could identify the character arcs, relate to people (even if I was bored by the exposition), and then all of a sudden, in the last twenty pages, every single character across two generations flips out so the book can come to some sort of a conclusion.
Neal writes about the things that fascinate him and occasionally has to wrap things up to make a book. Fun for him, but only occasionally good (let alone great) writing. I really liked "The Diamond Age" (except for the ending), "Zodiac" (whole thing) and "Snow Crash" (except for the ending), but Cryptonomicon drove me away from even being interested in Neal's new work. When I do an author scan at the bookstore, I go right by Stevenson. Near as I can tell, I've already got the good ones.
Regards,
Ross
I'll have to chime in as well, since I just finished Quicksilver myself.
Christ, what a tedious read. It was one of the worst Xmas presents I ever received. (Yeah, it took me this long to slog through it.)
I got the feeling throughout the whole book that Stephenson was writing to impress himself. The interesting moments and plot points were drowned out by relentless pedantry. (Quick, raise your hand if you finished the book, and you really wanted to get Daniel Waterhouse off that damned ship for the first 200 pages. Arrrrrrrrgh!)
And Stephenson's tendency to ramble.. and ramble.. and ramble.. has finally caught up with him.
I was disappointed to say the least; I expected better. Sigh.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
> ...but if people notice that Slashdot is "scooping" them
> I'd much rather wait a week (or more) for a long-form, considered and balanced review
>
Well, speaking as a former book store employee and a lifelong book-lover, I agree.
However, the story here (as I submitted it, too!) is that the book is on shelves today. I fully expect original reviews to be posted over the next few days -- but how will folks know to go get the book if we don't tell 'em it's for sale?
>
> Slashdot has a great thing going with their book reviews..
>
Again, I agree.
>
>
> by publishing insider accounts, or ignoring their labor in
> favour of linking to an outside newspaper, they will eventually
> get bored and tired and stop writing.
>
Then let's incentivize them! Get reviewer's credentials from the *ahem* Editors here and then pry a review copy out of Harper Collins which the reviewer is traditionally allowed to keep.
(Say, there's an idea for the next Stephenson book in the trilogy...)
If you love history, you should like Quicksilver.
It's not a light read. It helps to google some of the personalities to know who he's writing about.
I loved Quicksilver. I was just thinking that the next book won't be out for a while (Neal seems to write slowly). This made my day!
Ok, so now all the rambling, inconsistency, and bloatware feel makes sense..
- excerpt from an Amazon.com interview with Neal Stephenson available here.
"for instance, there might be one person who gets the job of looking after EMACS"
Neal, Neal, Neal.. vi buddy, trust us.
0h
One of the things Newton prided himself on was his virginity. Despite being married, he claimed to be a virgin up until his death.
I can see a few options for this.
1. Being the ubergeek of his time, he simply couldn't get laid.
2. He was lying.
3. He was confused as to what 'virgin' meant.
4. He was gay.
Now, I should mention that, for #4 to hold true, he'd either have had to not act on his impulses, or to have defined sex as being between a man and a woman. I think the latter's probably quite likely.
So depicting Newton as gay, while potentially controversial, isn't entirely improbable.
>It was destined to become a hit among twenty-something geeks who live in Silicon Valley and have no life outside of their job.
Considering how many people bought this book, your argument about who it appeals to holds as little water as your arguements about the writing. Sorry you didn't enjoy it; Clearly it was NOT written for 20-something geeks or he wouldn't have put in the exposition you found so painful. I don't know shit about Linux and found the whole book to be a fascinating techno-thriller on one hand and a great adventure story on the other. Can't wait to read the Baroque.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
Man, Digital Fortress was his first novel. It's FULL of errors of all sorts, not just laughable technical research (it's almost as bad as "The 'Net"). I've read three of his books and the newer they are, the better they are. However, I've read his books in reverse chronological order, which happened to also mean reading the best books first. Had I read Digital Fortress first, I'd label him "king-of-hacks".
-- All views expressed in this post are mine and do not
-- reflect those of my employer or their clients
Most importantly, the Enoch Root character introduced in Cryptonomicon is now the unifying factor of the Baroque Cycle. Whereas in just one book he could be accepted as a spooky, mysterious character, giving him a blatantly immortal lifespan moves the book more towards fantasy and away from semi-educational speculative history. (The fantastical parts of Crytponomicon, like the vowel-free isle of Qwflgm and the invention of the digital computer in Austrailia, were some of its weaknesses)
Retelling the same story in a different era is a sign that an author is out of good ideas. (But hey, Ken Follett retells the same story on the exact same date, and readers keep buying it)
But unfortunately, the two protagonists (Waterhouse and Shaftoe) are both willfully disconnected from the mainstream of society, and no supporting characters pop up to expound on backdrop factoids.
Many posters here have complained about Stephenson's prose: too much detail, not enough character development, and so on. I disagree with all of them. With Stephenson, you get scientific, historical, and technical knowledge along with characters that will grow on you if you let them. I think that by spending so many pages on information, he gives the characters a foundation in their environment. They have a depth that they would lack without the benefit of their surroundings, which are best explained the way he does it.
Another thing I love about his books, but especially Quicksilver, is the mixture of fictional characters and real people. The political intrigue of England in the 1680s was fascinating to me, as I'm a big fan of English history. I knew little about the people of that era before I read the book, but now I've sought out other materials on the time period and I'm looking forward to learning more. I've been to London several times, and I enjoyed picturing the city as it looked 320 years ago.
I do agree with those who say that his recent books have been too long, but not with their reasons. I take the subway to work, and I like to read to pass the time. Lugging Quicksilver back and forth to work for two months wasn't much fun. If he'd published the trilogy as a series of 300-page books instead, I'd be happier. But I'll gladly put up with the extra weight to enjoy Stephenson's writings again. You can only read a book for the first time once.
Lousy minor setbacks! This world sucks! -- Homer Simpson