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."

Comments

Get back to work!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop reading about trash sci-fi and do your job.

Sincerely,
Your Boss.

first post

[Anonymous Coward]

hi mom!

Confusion

[Chuck Bucket]

I'm confused, usually there's some long review of a book, followed by the FP! and GNAA posts, along with the 'cheaper at Amazon' links. This thread is different, at least for the time being.

CVsb

Re:Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, there's always some review that are WAY too long, and then plenty of off post comments! Hey, what is lefttotchance? Is that your siteor something?

~-mikael=>

Re:Confusion

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

A review? It's a book: Something happens to main character, a lot of other stuff happens, some more things take place, main character defeats King koopa and saves the princess and the butler did it! And they lived happely ever after, except for the butler who went to jail for doing it (she was underaged).

Re:Confusion

[Chuck Bucket]

but alas, upon freeing the princess, you are told

• Thank You, But Our Princess Is In Another Castle!

and then have to pass through a level with many swinging axes and fiery lava!

CB

Re:Confusion

[ron_ivi]

I'm confused to... I thought Stevenson was too busy working at this spaceship company to write books.

Re:Confusion

[ron_ivi]

Neal Stephenson himself writes about ""My Relationship to Blue Origin LLC" here.

He explicitly writes"

I do not accept any responsibilities there that would conflict with my work as an author or that would exceed the limits of my competence

"

Re:Confusion

[xmedar]

You forgot the confusion over the site not being /.ed out of existance by the torrent of users and thus having someone post the full text on page XXXX of the comments.

Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[dmh20002]

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.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[jra101]

Did the exact same thing.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[cybergrue]

I had the same problem. I compare it to the slow bits in Criptocomicon, (stuff like the multi-page letter they read through the wall. Slow and although well written, I had to ask why was it there) but extended to fill a whole book. I put Quicksilver down after a few chapters and instead reread Snowcrash. According to the rewier, the pace picks up in the in the second book, but I don't know if or when I will read it.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[kwerle]

Funny, I was just the opposite. I slugged my way through Crypto, but found Quicksilver to be an easier read.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[zomper514]

What was better Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver or Snow Crash? I only read Snow Crash? I liked it but it seemed to drag a little at the end.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[borud]

I've read about 540 pages of Quicksilver now and I have to agree that for the first 300 pages it was a pretty slow read for the most part. The parts with Newton and Waterhouse were very entertaining, but when Stephenson goes off putting things in a bigger historic perspective (or whatever he tries to do), things get a bit boring.

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.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Strange Ranger]

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!

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[ehiris]

Cryptonomicon was awesome. I was able to read it completely and I didn't have many problems understanding it.
Quicksilver is awful considering I'm a non-native English speaker. I had to look up almost every other word. It is no fun reading it that way. I wasn't even able to finish the first chapter.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[John Harrison]

I prefer Crytonomicon to Snowcrash, but enjoyed both of them and The Diamond Age as well. I tried and tried to finish Quicksilver (which I enjoyed at first) but couldn't. I figured that with hundreds of pages to go Jack Shaftoe was dead and the book seemed to get denser and denser without going anywhere. I couldn't see the point in finishing it.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Halfbaked Plan]

I loved 'The Big U', which depicts the 'campus' culture that Hackers thrive in so well. I can easily see Stallman nestled in there and thriving. And I liked 'Snow Crash' quite a bit. Most of Stephenson's later works seem like he takes himself too damn seriously.

His two books written under psuedonym are pretty good, too. He gets far, far too much adulation in certain circles, and it's affected his writing badly.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[rossifer]

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

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[John Harrison]

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.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[jpetts]

kind of drawn out, mediocre, masturbatory adjective-slinging, twaddle that my teachers were so fond of.

Please tell me you're being ironical here...

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[drinkypoo]

These books are for people who like to read, who are amused by the English language and what Americans have done to it, and who find Stephenson to be a fount of wit. All of his books to date have been like this (with the possible exception of those written under a pen name, they were a little different) so it really shouldn't surprise anyone.

Also, the point I originally wanted to make is that it helps if you read quickly. They put me (and a couple of the other GATE students) in front of a speed reading machine in the library of my grammar school for a couple years in a row, meeting approximately once a week, and as a result I have been ruined for most fiction because I can read the average novel in about two to four hours. If I'm seriously bored I can read a trilogy of thick like the lord of the rings in a weekend without any trouble. I've read Stephen King's The Stand in one day, the unabridged version mind you. So for me, even slow-paced books (with exceptions such as Clavell's Shogun, which is so slow I could write a book faster than I can read that one) play out rapidly, like a movie. Hence, I usually don't have time to get bored.

Finally, I found all of the characters (in Quicksilver) interesting enough to follow, and the prose entertaining to read. The books are full of clever people saying clever things which tends to keep me going. If the remaining books are similar, I'm sure I'll be drawn in. Time to go order yet another hardcover...

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[adamontherun]

Echoed. Crypto really drew you into the charachters, while making it scientifically interesting. Quicksilver can be summed up in one word: flat.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Strange Ranger]

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.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[uradu]

Well, I got bored half-way through your second paragraph. Not enough character development.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[NavySpy]

Believe me, it wasn't just you. I read about 4/5's of it an quit. I failed to see any point, plot, or purpose to the rather large, meandering, endless story of...... what, exactly, I never did figure out.

I'm amazed I got as far as I did. I kept thinking that things would start happening like in Cryptonmicron, but alas......

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I'm hoping that the irony here is intentional.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[uradu]

I agree. Besides, how many writers can spend entire pages on a mathematical analysis of the productivity vs. frequency of sex graphs--both the manual override and the one-on-one variety--and still show their face at the book signing?

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Cpt_Kirks]

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!

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[lidocaineus]

Someone un-mod the flamebait mod. It isn't flamebait because he disagrees with your opinion, especially when he has valid points.

Cryptonomicon may have been interesting when it moved, but there were pages and pages of dead space... where nothing but background explanations occurred. You *can* make background and explanations interesting if you're a good writer. Neal Stephenson is strictly mediocre. He's written some decent stuff; Cryptonomicon needed an editor. It's huge page count isn't a testament to his talents as a writer, but his lack of direction, mental masturbatory habits, and pointless diversions.

For an example of meandering writing that actually DOES something (and I'm not even the biggest fan), check out Dave Eggers. Or if you have an open mind, Virginia Woolf.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[fuctape]

Well done -- your take on his books in general is very close to my own. Crypto is still one of my favorite books period, but Quicksilver engaged a *lower* gear as the ending approached. I'm now re-motivated to read it, however, since I want to give The Confusion a chance. He's too good to pass up!

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

I REALLY think it's about sense of humor. I think of Dave Eggers almost exactly what you think of Neal Stephenson.
I love clever dry wry wit. Stephenson could write an account of his latest cab ride and I'd enjoy it. Eggers sense of humor sort of reminds me of the comic strip "Family Circus". You have to pile on all this emotional baggage and allow some stranger to pull on your intimate "heart strings" to make you laugh in this warm gushy way. Yuck. But I'm a dude who likes to fiddle with gadgets, play FPS games, and go fishing. I don't want to be made to feel like I'm watching Lifetime television in order to enjoy the subsequent humor. Some might call me Shallow, I might call some Melodramatic or Ruled By Their Emotions. Just goes to show, as said above, to each their own.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[ucblockhead]

I love history. I read Will Durant's entire 12,000 page "Story of Civilization" series one year.

I hated Quicksilver. Dull, dull, dull!

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[lidocaineus]

I don't like Dave Eggers' way of being emotional or pandering, but he knows how to move a story along during the background moments (which is my entire point). Stephenson gives background for ENDLESS pages... but with no real reason for it other than to be geeky and appeal to geeks.

In other words, humor has nothing to do with it. The basic point was that Neal loves indulging in pointless side stories. Eggers does the same thing, except for one thing: they actually pertain to the story at hand. You may not like the story, but at least it adds to it instead of saying, "Hey, look, I can talk about unix like all those folks on /.!"

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[aeoo]

He makes digging a mine shaft fun and interesting.

I guess someone like me likes to mentally step back every page or two and ask myself, what is it am I reading here? If the answer is "really, this is about digging a mine shaft" then I am very much underwhelmed. If Neal can somehow manage to open a new facet of a human soul by describing such rote activity with equally rote prose, but nay....he cannot. It's just mindless self-absorbed rambling to me.

What I hear from you is that you find this book entertaining but not insightful. And you appear to be entertained by little trivial things. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, mind you. I can relate. I sometimes have great insight stearing at a pebble on the road. So, I suppose if your mind is open enough you can make any bad book into a good one by adding your own effort to it. Fair enough.

But I just say, why bother, when you can add your own effort to a more worthy book?

I really think most people are just drooling over Neal because he can (supposedly) use EMACS and because he knows what Perl is. But who cares? As a CS dork, I really don't care about these things when it comes to book authors. I can read a Perl manual if I want to be impressed by someone's knowledge of Perl. If I want to be impressed with Perl I go read Larry and Damian.

What I am going to say sounds very strange even to myself, but I wish geeks would not produce literary works. Really. It's fine to be a geek, but geeks have little insight into deep human issues. If you are a geek and you think of writing a non-computer-manual type book, please do everyone a favor and drop your silly geekiness and write as one human to another and not as one geek to another geek.

It's so typical for a geek to drown in detail and trivia and to miss the bigger picture. I think there is a spark of talent somewhere in Neal. After all, I think Snowcrash was very promising. But Neal's tilt and ego are killing him I think.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[IntelliTubbie]

Oh man, I'm embarassed. I bought Quicksilver the day it came out, and I still haven't finished it, and now the sequel comes out. It's official: Neal Stephenson publishes faster than I read!

Cheers,
IT

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[ostone]

The Big U actually ends... and what an ending it is. Other than that, I haven't read one of his books where the ending paragraph seems any more final than all the paragraphs before it (and many times it seems less final than some of the others). Still, he is an excellent writer and I intend to read this series no matter what others say about it... just as soon as I can find the oversized paperback that I have all his other books in.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Scrameustache]

I think Snowcrash was very promising.

Read Diamond Age.
You might get annoyed by some parts (there was a side story I found mostly confusing), but I read it as though it was the sequel to Snow Crash.

Then I read Cryptonomicon as though it was the prequel to Snow Crash.

I really think most people are just drooling over Neal because he can (supposedly) use EMACS and because he knows what Perl is. But who cares? As a CS dork, I really don't care about these things when it comes to book authors.

I didn't know any of that before I read his books, someone just lent me Snow and Diamond.

As a computer nerd, you need to read cryptonomicon, it has (near the end) a great scene of heroic computer hacking. There's many Waterhouse computer hacking moments, but the thing he does with the "scroll lock" light...that was awsome.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[aeoo]

Diamond Age sounds like a book I should read. I just might take your advice.

I still have to finish John C. Wright's trilogy. I'm reading The Golden Transcendence now. And John C. Wright was also a very slow starter for me. I almost stopped reading in the middle of the first book, but somehow he did manage to keep my attention and then things got much better. Phaethon is an awesome character, even though I don't want to be like him (he's too ambitious, imo, or not ambitious enough, depending on how I look at it). It's probably not hard core enough if you like Neal though, because the nanotech as depicted by John C. Wright will probably never happen. But I digress.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

strange. I read snowcrash, diamond age, almost all of the cryptonomicon, and am slogging my way through the last few pages of quicksilver (it seemed to get real slow at the end). So far I liked diamond age the best by far. Is there anyone else that really liked that book?

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, Diamond Age is a great book, it just has this one great big fault: the book doesn't end, it just stops. But otherwise it's a fun ride, certainly worth reading.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Strange Ranger]

> about digging a mine shaft...such rote activity.

Hmmm.. There are many things I'd like to know, it's the manuals that are hard to get through on something like mining for me. I WAS entertained, and now I know a lot more about mine shafts, which I actually encounter more often than you might think. It's things that like that enabled me to correctly ID remnants of an old hastily erected wet saw mill we found in the National Forest nearby. (Different facts, same idea - something I'd not normally know squat about) It was quite a find, half buried, 80-120 years old. We followed it to an old clear cut plateau that was never replanted. Camped under the stars.

On a fishing trip after reading Cryptonomicon it was much more fun to follow the sink holes from the huge mine underneath the valley and imagine what was underneath.

Almost anything can neat and broaden your appreciation for the wolrd.
Hey "Rote activity"... = pre-transistor style decryption!

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Hey, look, I can talk about unix like all those folks on /.!"

It's entertaining. In that way he talks about it BETTER than the folks on /.

"Hey, look, I can talk about $Thing.... "

Is educational if you don't know about $Thing.

Not too much is better than being entertained while being educated at the same time.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[Remillard]

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. I have to disagree with this to a degree. The ending of The Diamond Age has fascinated me since the first time I read it. I admit the first time I read the book, it completely felt running at full tilt off a cliff and suddenly there's no ground left beneath you, a la Wile E. Coyote. However, after reading more of his work, I got to thinking that perhaps there is some way of observing the ending that doesn't feel stilted. There is. The main two themes of the book are societal connections, from the mini (immediate family) to the macro (full scale phyles), and cycles. When Nell and her brother fled their home early on, it broke the connections of family, leaving her adrift, and it broke the basic maturation cycle. Viewed in these terms, the true climax of the plot lies roughly in the section in which Nell becomes the Queen of the Mouse Army. The rescue of Miranda and the healing of the mother-daughter connection is more falling action and essentially assured. Now, this all gets COMPLETELY mixed up with the Seed/Feed transition which is completely left hanging, and causes most of the confusion. If you read the book with the thematic view completely on Nell/Miranda and trying to push Hackworth's design for the seed, it all works much better. Just one fellows opinion.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver

[lidocaineus]

You have simply reinforced what I said, as well as pointed out WHY it's NOT good writing. Since you seem to be entertained by reading the equivalent of a manual, more power to you (see O'Reilly books for a similar experience, or the latest Pulitzer prize winner for criticism).

This is how Stephenson writes: Prose, prose, looooonnnnng explanation, prose prose prose, loooong explanation. Good writers will not break the flow to enter an explanation. It will happen while you read. He doesn't seem to understand this.

Stephen King usurped!

[emtechs]

Anyone know if he actually wrote the three books in under a year? After Robert Jordan I've tried to avoid starting series that may never end...

Maybe it was a Kill Bill style 'why not make them buy it three times?' marketing move.

Re:Stephen King usurped!

[disappear]

It took him five years to write three books --- well, that's the time since Cryptonomicon was released. So, even with a year for book touring and preliminaries, it was four years. The reason that the trilogy is being published as three separate books rather than one long one: page counts. The first volume is 900 pages, the second is 800, and the third is somewhere about the same length, I've heard.

Re:Stephen King usurped!

[denisonbigred]

In a word: No. He took 4 or 5 years to write them and was slowed by the fact that he wrote them entirely with a fountain pen (No, Really).

Re:Stephen King usurped!

[majestyk2000]

"After Robert Jordan I've tried to avoid starting series that may never end..."

Amen to that. I once was quoted as saying Robert Jordan was the best modern fantasy writer in my humble opinion, but I have to say that the last installment of the Wheel of Time series was the first 500+ page book I'd read in which absolutely nothing happened. After I got done with it, I had to acknowledge that there was no plot continuance in the entire book. Everyone stayed where they were doing what they'd been doing in the previous book, and Rand himself showed up for about 20 pages. I am certain that when the next book comes out, one would be able to skip the most recent installment completely and carry on just fine.

My cock

[Anonymous Coward]

is baroque, too.

And my anus
is being attacked
by tentacles.

Not released on April 1st

[gebner]

> Neal Stephenson's 'The Confusion', second volume of his Baroque Cycle is released today.

Wasn't it planned to be released on April 1st?

Re:Not released on April 1st

[Andux]

Only in the UK. The US release is today.

Still haven't finished Quicksilver

[richieb]

I'm maybe 200 pages into it. Slow going. Not as good as "Crytonomicon".

Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver

[gebner]

> I'm maybe 200 pages into it. Slow going. Not as good as "Crytonomicon".

Oh, you're still in the interesting part. I'm 220 pages further but reading slashdot is more interesting...

Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver

[-tji]

I bought Quicksilver as soon as it was released.. And it's been sitting in my "To Read" pile ever since. That huge volume is just a bit too intimidating to begin. I've read about a dozen smaller books in the interrim.

When I got Cryptonomicon, I put off reading that until I had a 15 hour flight. I got through the bulk of it in the 30 hour round trip.

Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver

[squidfood]

When I got Cryptonomicon, I put off reading that until I had a 15 hour flight. I got through the bulk of it in the 30 hour round trip.

I took Quicksilver on a 12-hour flight, and at hour 4 I was fervently praying for it to alchemize into a different book.

One the way back I bought three Terry Pratchetts in the airport instead.

Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver

[dr_dank]

I also loved Cryptonomicon and bought Quicksilver as soon as it came out. After 200 pages, it totally lost me. It had only a few scant traces of NS wit to keep the reader going through the dry parts. Never though I'd see him write a book that almost dares you to read it. Quite a disappointment.

Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver

[3dr]

This isn't boding well for him.

I loved Snowcrash.

I just finished Cryptonomicon the other day and if I ever have to read one more page about Randy's prostate again.... Less specifically, the 1100 pages of Crypto were about 500 more than was justified for the actual plot. Great story, otherwise.

Quicksilver, and a signed copy at that, will be started soon. I really hope it's better than what's being described here.

Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver

[blighter]

It's not.

If you thought Cryptonomicon had 500 pages too much, woah-nelly are you in for a seriously bad time with Quicksilver.

Until Quicksilver, I considered myself a pretty big Stephenson fan. Pre-ordered Quicksilver (and got it the day before it was supposed to go on sale, neat trick that) and still haven't finished it.

I petered out about 200 pages from the end.

Three chapters in a row were both so impenatrably written and had so little or nothing to do with the plot (such as it was, there are actually at least 3 plots, none of which seem to relate at all -- or even share the same decade for that matter) that I couldn't even view the remainder of the book as a "sprint to the finish." (And after 6 or 7 _hundred_ pages, 200 should feel like running downhill, not struggling up.)

Amazingly, I loved his earlier books so much that I am considering trying to struggle the rest of the way through Quicksilver and pick up Confusion if I get even a _hint_ that it might be redeeming.

But I'm not hopeful.

The truly amazing thing, to me, is that after writing one of the world's most unapproachable, plodding books and naming it QUICKsilver, he would have the unmitigated gall to name the second 900 page tome "Confusion".

Now that's what I call chutzpah.

Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, you people are fuckin stupid.

"Waaah, I can't read these hard words, there's so many pages!"

STFU you goddam pussies!

-Neal Stephenson

anyone know where I can score some

[cyrax777]

snowcrash?

Re:anyone know where I can score some

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, look for some shady avatar at the Black Sun. Only question is how to get in seeing as you might not be a member.

If you want to get in, look for a avatar dressed in a black ninja outfit with two swords and riding a motorcycle.

Re:anyone know where I can score some

[BiteMeFanboy]

It's "why vote for the lesser of two evils" you ass.

Re:anyone know where I can score some

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey mods just you dont get the fucking joke doesnt make it offtopic.

Opportunity for profit

[product byproduct]

Easy way to make cash if you're Cowboy Neal:

- Write a book titled "Stephenson".
- The book cover should say in big letters:

Cowboy
Neal
Stephenson

- Cash in on people who think this is "Cowboy" from Neal Stephenson.

Re:Opportunity for profit

[realmolo]

U2

Negativland

Re:Opportunity for profit

[Halfbaked Plan]

Yeah, but U2 by Negativland is actually better than the pretentious drivel by the other band. It's sort of a bait-and-switch where the buyer gets a good deal.

Re:Opportunity for profit

[Hiro Antagonist]

Faye and Jet renamed the Bebop to "Neil Stephenson"? That's just lame.

Re:Opportunity for profit

[elmegil]

Yeah, cos we know THEY'RE cleaning up.

What a poor review.

[dputzter82]

Is it just me or did that book review seem confusing.
I'm pretty sure the author didn't pass high school English, with all the tangents and non flowing structure.
He'd get no more than a C for that one from me.

The Nexus of Confusion Is Located: +1, Patriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

At today's Presidential News Conference

Cheers,
K. Trout

If you thought Quicksilver…

[Anonymous Coward]

...was slowsilver, The Confusion will be literal.

Im must be out of the loop

[TheKidWho]

I must be out of the loop here, but can someone explain to me why this is front page news?

Re:Im must be out of the loop

[Punscho]

Because Stephenson writes books about nerds.

Re:Im must be out of the loop

[VeeCee]

Neal Stephenson is incredibly popular with the readers of Slashdot.

Re:Im must be out of the loop

[Anonymous Coward]

This is offtopic because?

Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read both of these books and (nominally) enjoyed them as far as the story was concerned, but on the whole, both of them left a bad taste in my mouth because of Stephenson's inability to tell a story without injecting his own political viewpoint into it. Take for example homosexuality. Both books feature sympathetic and heroic characters (Isaac Newton and Alan Turing) that are homosexuals (although I think Stephenson is speculating about Newton.) However, their homosexuality has nothing to do with the story. Why mention it at all?

Instead, Stephenson goes out of his way to talk about it, especially in the case of Turing. If Stephenson doesn't have a personal issue with "gay" people, fine, but he doesn't have to turn his books into an advertisement for homosexuality. I notice that he doesn't lavish similar praise and attention on Christian characters. I wonder why such a double standard exists? 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. His penchant for politics ruins what would be a couple of otherwise wonderful stories.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[disappear]

In The Confusion, Newton's homosexuality becomes a plot point.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

because he is writing for slashdot open sores hippies, all of whom are butt pirates of the caribbean.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[TheKidWho]

Newton was gay?!?? wAATTT??

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[mr_don't]

Sounds like you have some kind of sexual insecurity.

I enjoyed reading about Turing's sexuality in Crypto*, what a shame that in real life he was hurt professionaly by his sexual orientation

Gay rights are an important issue, don't pretend like it's not. Are you also of the opinion that there is no race problem in the world? SHould we not talk about it? I say, talk about it as much as possible.

Maybe you should take some social science classes, put down the sci-fi and go outside.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Xeger]

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.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[fbform]

"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?

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[LMCBoy]

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.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Scrameustache]

MILD SPOILER WARNINGS

BEWARE

Both books feature sympathetic and heroic characters (Isaac Newton and Alan Turing) that are homosexuals (although I think Stephenson is speculating about Newton.) However, their homosexuality has nothing to do with the story. Why mention it at all?
Instead, Stephenson goes out of his way to talk about it, especially in the case of Turing. If Stephenson doesn't have a personal issue with "gay" people, fine, but he doesn't have to turn his books into an advertisement for homosexuality. I notice that he doesn't lavish similar praise and attention on Christian characters.

Turing makes a pass at a character, and then has a fight with his ex. That's pretty much all I remember about his sex life.

Newton is girly, and teased a young boy for being girly, and then its assumed (wrongly) that his best friend and concerned roomate was his lover, and he has secret meetings with this other gay character.
The book is, what, 800, 900 pages long?

Yeah...that was such an advertisement for homosexuality! Sheesh...
You didn't like it because you want homo characters to be either not in there at all, or punished for their sins. Fine, let the rest of us read books and not care about wether some character is gay or not.

P.S. Whatever you do, don't read American Gods by Neil Gaiman.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[jdcook]

Good post. As another poster noted below, in the scene where Randy returns to California and his earthquake ravaged home, *only* the Christian people behave decently to him and America Shaftoe.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

Homosexuality WAS an important thing to Turing, whether it was up to him or not. However, I didn't like how he was portrayed more-or-less as a simpering late-20th-c. fag. It just doesn't sync up with the image of Turing I've gleaned from real biographies, and I think it's a cheap tactic. Try "Turing: A Novel about Computation" by Papadimitriou for something a little less cartoon.

And Newton? Give me a fscking break (only going by hearsay here - read Crypto'micon only, and that just barely).

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[decapentaplegic]

If Stephenson doesn't have a personal issue with "gay" people, fine, but he doesn't have to turn his books into an advertisement for homosexuality.

Man, you said it. It's about time people writing so called "literature" quit wasting my time with junk like character development and multiple layers of contextual meaning. And authors who use so-called art to present their views of the world? What a yawner!

And I totally agree on how his books overdo the sexuality politics. I mean do you know how much effort was wasted pushing the heterosexual agenda in Cryptonomicon? Page after page of "Randy" getting worked up over some chick in a wetsuit. And that WAY too descriptive het-sex in the car scene. Imperial Pint?!? YUCK! Too much information!

I sure as hell don't want to have to think too hard about why they do stuff. Just hurry up and get to the good parts where they wire routers and blow stuff up.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[gardyloo]

Bravo ;) Wish I had mod points today!

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Xeger]

You'd think that pronouncing Neil Gaiman's name out loud ("Gay Man") would be enough to scare off any readers who might be disturbed by homosexual themes. ;-)

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Bullet-Dodger]

I've read both of these books and (nominally) enjoyed them as far as the story was concerned, but on the whole, both of them left a bad taste in my mouth because of Stephenson's inability to tell a story without injecting his own political viewpoint into it. Take for example heterosexuality. Both books feature sympathetic and heroic characters (Jack Shaftoe and Bobby Shaftoe) that are heterosexuals. However, their heterosexuality has nothing to do with the story. Why mention it at all? I mean, Bobby sleeps with two different women in the book! Stephenson is obviously hitting out over the head with his pro-heterosexual agenda. Why can't we just have good old fashion books about upstanding Christians of undisclosed sexuality?

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, pinko leftist Euro liberal homo here. I have to admit Cryptonomicom made me FURIOUS. :-)

We have ONE smart Japanese guy. When confronted with Christianity he immediately converts and moves to America.

Somewhere in the book the hero meets his girl where she is at a cafe (I think) with her friends and some famous liberal arts guy from the university someone I get the feeling is a thinly disguised real person. Our hero reveals the sloppy thinking of this evil liberal person and completely demolishes him with a few choice phrases. I'm surprised the Stephenson alter ego didn't kick his ass and sent him crying home to mommy while he was at it. Can you say strawman?

We have the scene where a Chinese person in a business negotiation has a twinkle of irony in his eye despite trying to play hardball, because he was once an exchange student to California and "once exposed to the virus of irony you can't completely be rid of it". Yes Virginia, only USians have a sense of humor. They invented it you know!

The whole worshipful attitude of the military and the perfect masculine marine... Stephenson is practically on his knees drooling in front of Shaftoe.

These are just the things I remember off the top of my head. The whole book was full of these little digs. Going back and reading the books by him that I like (Zodiac, Snow Crash, Diamond Age), you can see the beginning of this attitude. The veiled contempt he has towards the average environmentalist ("checking the wires on the car would be like black magic to these people"). How incredibly one dimensional all female characters are in his books and how unconvincing the relationships.

He is turning more and more conservative with every book. People worrying about the pro-gay content in the books shouldn't be concerned, he probably won't bother keeping up this pretence of tolerance long either.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm.. I always heard it "Guy-mun" phonetically.

Second vowel does the talking, first one keeps it's mouth shut? Not like proper English applies to proper names though.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[sludg-o]

Yeah...that was such an advertisement for homosexuality! Sheesh...

I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my homosexuals FLAMING!

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear! Hear! Except that you may want to look into the history of Turing and notice that it was the American government, and not the British, that objected strongly to Turing's sexuality. They regarded him as a 'security risk', and requested that the British governmnet do something about it. Of course the fact that they did means that they are not toally without blame . . .

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[fatdave]

I think you missd the point. Waterhouse's religion plays a key role in how he relates to the others in the society around him. In a time when there is turmoil and religious conflict, being part of an outspoken minority has its own perils and direclty shapes the behaviour of W. in his pursuits and choices.

There are many complex social threads running through the book. It was a lot deeper than I was expecting and very entertaining for someone with a sense of history and place. (He is talking my language as a chemist, and the developement of London during the scientific enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is fascinating as it's echos are still apparent in much of the modern city. Some parts are contrived but are forgiven as they are necessary to bridge the gaps in the narrative.

At first I didn't realise that it was a trilogy so got to the end of the first volume and felt somewhat cheated as there were more loose ends than I could count still unaccounted for.

For those who are still looking for a plot, you are wasting your time. There are minor plots and subplots, but it is a historical narrative, along the lines of War and Peace or similar. There is no major 'Grand Design' a la Cryptonomicon where the story rotates around teh ultimate treasure hunt. In the Baroque Trilogy the story centres araound the characters and their relationships with the times and implicitly how those times relate to us in terms of the knowledge and developments that we take for granted.

Quicksilver was slow. It is not a pulp fiction page turner. It is not a thriller. But taken on it's terms as a narrative of characters and times rather than of a plot, it is an excellent work. The pace is jsut right and I am looking forward to the next two volumes (just ordered The Confusion).

What was least believable? Jack Shaftoe's Eastern European trek and much of the travel. The timescale is far too compressed. Apart from that, it doesn't rankle too much, and is far better than most of what passes for literature these days. ..d

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[tehcyder]

I think you're missing Stephenson's playfulness. You can read this as satirising either liberal geeks, or desperate neo-conservatives, or both at the same time.

On the one hand, the idea of seeing "just about everything" in UNIX metaphors is inherently satirical (unless you're a humourless geek). But on the other, this is a parody of one of those desperately contrived and long-winded religious lessons ("And if Jesus were alive today, I'm sure that he, too, would enjoy a happy meal at McDonalds, for did he not say "suffer the children..."").

And finally, you could take this as a serious argument, too.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Imran]

> For 1,500 years, Christianity has been the
> accepted "normal" religion throughout most of
> the developed world

If you read the introduction to ibn Khaldun's 'Muqaddimah' (one of the great sociological/historical works of human history), you will find that he rails against those 'fools' who describe the past using the mindset of the present. And that is exactly what you have done in the above quote!

For example, for most of the shared history between the Islamic and Christian worlds, the Christian world was NOT 'the developed world'. Prior to the Mongol Holocaust, the Muslim world outstripped Europe in most areas of scientific endevour.

And I haven't even mentioned China/Egypt/India in comparison to Christian Europe in pre-Muslim times.

I suggest that you may like to revise the '1500 years' part of your sentence.

Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver

[Xeger]

You make a very good point. Especially given the recurring theme, throughout Quicksilver, of European medicine and science being vastly inferior to the Turks'.

Substitute 'European' for 'developed' and my statement holds true. But, since Europe was formerly known as Christendom by the majority of its inhabitants, the statement at that point comes dangerously close to being devoid of meaning. ("Christianity was the accepted normal religion throughout Christendom.")

Mea culpa ... what else to say? Other than the fact that I was trying to paint Christianity as the dominating incumbent power structure, and my post was addressing the conservative, Christian and probably small-minded author of the parent ... so perhaps a few fallacies on my part can be forgiven.

Re:The Nexus of Confusion Is Located: +1, Patrioti

[Chuck Bucket]

thanks, that site does rock, hurah for top level domains! this one is a classic:

• 04.11.2004: White House Releases President Bush's Personal Copy of Declassified Daily Intelligence Briefing for August 6th, 2001:
  "I know the American people will agree I did the right thing, when after reading that ridiculously vague memo filled with specific references to an al Qaeda attack, I promptly skipped town for thirty fun-filled days of golf, jogging, and naps!"

It's funny cause it's true.

P

Re:The Nexus of Confusion Is Located: +1, Patrioti

[B3ryllium]

Wasn't Kilgore Trout from the Soldier of Fortune tv series?

book reviews, not links to book reviews

[sdedeo]

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.

Re:book reviews, not links to book reviews

[himself]

>
> I thought the tradition for book reviews was for slashdot
> contributors to post their own, here.
>
There would be more reviews by Slashdottista only if more of us were sufficiently plugged into the publishing world to get galleys or preview copies. The book only hit shelves today!

Re:book reviews, not links to book reviews

[sdedeo]

So bully to the publishers, I say! I'd much rather wait a week (or more) for a long-form, considered and balanced review.

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.

Re:book reviews, not links to book reviews

[himself]

>
> 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.
>
> ...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.
>
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...)

Re:book reviews, not links to book reviews

[liloconf]

You mean im the only one who ran out, bought the book, and read it so that I can be first review post on slashdot...?

Yeah but....

[claytongulick]

does stuff blow up?

Ouch!

[AgentGray]

I loved all of Stephenson's books, except for Quicksilver.

To tell you how bad, seeing this post on /. came as a surprise to me.

Re:Ouch!

[sjf]

Did you read "The Big U" ?

Not sure I loved that one.

-S

Re:Ouch!

[sinergy]

Stephenson doesn't like it either:
>Neal, what is your opinion of your first novel, The Big U?

The fact that virtually all of the first edition ended up getting pulped created an unnatural scarcity of the printed book, which is only now being alleviated by a new edition from HarperCollins. This scarcity caused the price of the first edition to become ridiculously high, and led to bootleg editions being posted on the Web. If the book were judged on its own intrinisic merits, it would not attract such a high price or engender such curiosity. The Big U is what it is: a first novel written in a hurry by a young man a long time ago.

trilogy and endings

[svallarian]

Well, i guess since it's a trilogy, this will actually give stephenson an excuse for a book to not have an ending.

Steven V.

Re:trilogy and endings

[msuzio]

This is what killed "The Diamond Age" for me. Great book, very interesting characters, awesome speculative technology and settings...

Then, it suddenly ended, and left me scratching my head totally. I actually checked to make sure I wasn't missing another chapter or something...

Then I was totally embarrased, because I had already recommended the book to several friends. I was hoping they'd forget I mentioned it.

Not that that kept me from getting Cryptonomicon. I work at a security company, I think I pretty have to read it.

Re:trilogy and endings

[jonskerr]

Why are so many people here so thick? All these endings are proper endings to where the book/characters are going. The end of the Diamond Age is the point where the three main characters resolve their initial dilemmas: Nell solves the puzzles of the Primer (becomes an adult etc), Miranda meets her 'daughter' Nell, and Hackworth/the Artifex creates the new nanotech "Seed Technology", (though there's a slight delay due to Nell rescuing Miranda).

The ending of Cryptonomicon was even a pat ending: Randy's company gets the gold, and Randy and Amy live happily ever after (though there's certainly room for more adventures).

I like Stephenson, BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I like Stephenson, BUT

[aeoo]

Exactly. Maybe this is what killed me on Neal's books. There was no such problem in Snowcrash. It was fun and exciting all the way through.

Granted, Snowcrash was not a groundbreaking work like Dune, but it was fun and exciting diversion. It was entertainment. Not bad! It's worth 7 bucks or whatever the soft cover costs.

On the other hand, there is too much crap in his other books and way too much mundane trivialities and silly descriptions of irrelevant things.

Re:I like Stephenson, BUT

[kjs3]

Gwad do I ever agree. Take Snowcrash. It was a book which streached a handful of really interesting ideas wafer thin over it's ponderous length. The ending was so bad I put Stephenson in the "not worth the effort" catagory a long time ago. Simply awful.

Re:I like Stephenson, BUT

[CompressedAir]

I think it is clear you do not "get it".

Neal is good because of the "flab", not in spite of it.

Re:I like Stephenson, BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. I actually had to edit my first copy of Cryptonomicon myself, and flagged it with dozens of postits with spelling, etc. errors that any normal highschool-newspaper-level editor would have easily excised. It says a lot about him as a writer that I was willing to do this for him rather than throwing the book down in disgust (and he WAS kind enough to send the book back, signed) but it also says very-bad things about his publisher -- things which apparently haven't changed!
me

Re:I like Stephenson, BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is clear that you do not "get it".

Nothing is good because of the "flab", not even your mom.

Re:I like Stephenson, BUT

[turambar00]

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". I REALLY hope that this isn't the ending to The Confusion...

Re:I like Stephenson, BUT

[fuctape]

Hundreds of his readers are happy with his endings, including me. Crypto's gold flowing out of the mountain was a fine ending -- it was the end of the line for gold that was involved in the military conspiracy, covered by the cryptography hijinks, and the ultimate funding for the data haven and HEAP project.

My perspective is that you and other Stephenson ending-haters haven't stepped back and looked at the overarching threads and themes of the book, not to mention the plot. Granted, this is hard -- I didn't understand it until my second read-through. No, it's not your pat Hollywood ending; it's a proper ending for a book with big threads. Same goes for Snow Crash and Diamond Age.

The problem with Stephenson is male-female dialog

[Nakito]

Stephenson makes great use of speculative history. He postulates some great "what if" scenarios arising from past events and uses them to weave an alternative present. He always succeeds in grabbing my attention. And then -- 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. I think it's supposed to be banter, but it's just stilted. Is it any wonder he chose the name "Eliza" for the female protagonist in Quicksilver?

Yeah but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...does he run Lunix?

Re:Yeah but...

[TheKidWho]

the more important question is... Does it support OGG?

Lies, opinions, and half-truths

[Anonymous Coward]

If you agree with any of this, feel free to repost it in the future.

* If "Linux" just refers to the kernel and not the operating system, how can "FreeBSD" refer to the operating system (userland tools, standard libraries, etc.) and not just the kernel? Face it, "GNU/Linux" looks and sounds ridiculous.

* If you expect companies to follow the copyright of the GPL, you should support the RIAA going after infringers of its copyright. If not, you're a hypocrite.

* There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company being upset that its product is being pirated freely over online networks. Try getting a real job sometime and see what it feels like when your work is everywhere, and you start worrying that your days are numbered. Does John Carmack want you to "sample" his new game via the "free advertising" happening on eMule?

* OSDN-owned Slashdot thinks its niche opinion represents the majority of the world. This is a result of people visiting every day and buying into the groupthink. Nobody outside of Slashdot knows or cares about "Linux," "RIAA", "M$," or anything else Slashdotters think is such a huge issue in today's society. Go to a mall or coffee shop sometime and see what people actually talk about.

* Speaking of OSDN--it's a Linux company...that owns a "tech news" site...that posts news stories negative toward competitors like Microsoft. If a Windows company or even Microsoft itself owned a "tech news" site and posted anti-Linux articles all the time, everyone would be up in arms. But with OSDN, it's a-okay.

* Slashbots think people don't like the music coming out these days, which is the cause of the piracy. Never mind that if people didn't like the music they wouldn't be pirating it, most Slashbots--again, this goes back to the niche opinion thing--don't realize that most people these days love the music coming out and want to hear all of it. Probing around, you discover that Slashdot is made up of nerds and fogies who listen to things like The Who and Blind Guardian and techno--not what mainstream society enjoys.

* Any company ending in "AA" is evil. Especially if it doesn't want you distributing its works without paying for it. Somehow, this mindset is supposed to make sense.

* The inevitable result of all this is a world in which nothing can be profitable because people simply pirate free copies. Is that really what Slashbots want? OSS and free-ness in general reminds me of the hippie era of the 60s--idealistic socialism that only exists because of the surrounding capitalism around it that provides the environment for it to exist. We all know what happened to that idea.

* Slashdot editors are abusive. We all remember The Post. It's amusing the editors never mention the issue. The worst editor is michael, who will mod you down, insult you for your post count, and post unprofessional color commentary along with the article. This is the same bizarre person who cybersquatted Censorware for years--even as Slashdot posted articles negative toward cybersquatting! Michael played it off like he was some sort of stalking victim, which made it all the more bizarre.

* The moderation system is broken. If you mod someone as "Overrated," you can't be metamodded. People abuse this all the time to gang up and knock you down into oblivion.

* Somehow, user-ran executables are always a "New Microsoft Hole" (actual article headline). Meanwhile, LinuxSecurity posts weekly security advisories for all the Linux distributions. You never, ever, EVER see any of these mentioned on Slashdot--bizarre things like arbitrary code execution via MPlayer.

* Microsoft is supposed to be some sort of non-innovative rip-off artist. Meanwhile, the same people posting those comments do it through KDE with taskbars, sidepanels, start menus, similar print dialogs, and an integrated web/filesystem browser. Effectively ripping people off then criticizing those who came up with the ideas in the first place.

* Linux is "ready for the desktop." This is the year

Re:Lies, opinions, and half-truths

[ringbarer]

Slashdot professes to be some sort of golden defender of consumer copyright law. Few people remember that in an IRC chat, Hemos said that what DailySlash is doing was "illegal" and that they should stop.

It was Alterslash. See below.

Why mention it at all?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

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.

Suprised....

[VeeCee]

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.

Re:Suprised....

[Knos]

I'd like to second that. I've read it very quickly (a lot quicker than cryptonomicon, which I actually had to force myself to continue reading) and found the variety of its topics very entertaining.

Confusion ?

[Jesrad]

The Confusion is out ? Well, then, Hail Eris ! Or something...

Re:Confusion ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hail Eris - Discordia!

gobble-gobble-gobble-gobble-gobble
ha ve an apple ;)...
kappa-alpha-lambda-iota

et cetera -- [RUAPope2?UR!]

Eliza dies at the end of The Confusion!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Trinity.

did Quicksilver have a plot?

[oogoody]

Does this book have a plot?
That would be a good start.

Re:did Quicksilver have a plot?

[flanksteak]

Exactly! As entertaining as parts of Quicksilver were, nothing really happened. It read as if it were a 1000-page prologue. Does the story begin in the Confusion? I hope so. I probably will read it, but I won't run to the bookstore today like I did when Quicksilver came out.

Intro to Neal

[The-Dalai-LLama]

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 /. ...

Re:Intro to Neal

[SamHill]

I recommend Zodiac.

Zodiac (subtitled The Ecothriller) is still my favorite Stephenson, suitable for numerous rereadings. It's fun, downright silly, at times, and has a loveably obnoxious main character.

ObTopic: I liked Quicksilver a lot, too, and I should have The Confusion on Thursday. Very Pynchonesque (in the Mason & Dixon sense).

Re:Intro to Neal

[Anonymous Coward]

Snow Crash is another good one to start with. It's steeped the same sarcastic wit that's prevelant throughout Cryptonomicon and Quicksilver.

Re:Intro to Neal

[MrWa]

The problem is that most everyone is familiar with all of Mr. Stephenson's books and are overwhelmingly vocal with their displeasure of Quicksilver, while those that liked it just sit back and wait for the sequel.

I liked it. It was a decent historical fiction with a somewhat decent similiarity to Pynchon books. Neal's writing is not as good as Pynchon, by far, but the end result was a good enough read to want to know what happens to Shaftoe, how Waterhouse fixes the fight, and whether predestination or free will is right.

The Neal Stephenson mini-HOWTO

[Onan The Librarian]

I'm assuming you mean you don't know who Neal Stephenson is, and/or why his work should be interesting to /. readers. His famous Snow Crash is a novel with about half its storyline taking place in a higher-tech cyberspace. Various other NS works and activities put him on /. readership radar, including his non-fiction "In The Beginning Was The Command-line..." (in which he espouses Linux with the memorable analogy with the Hole Hawg) and his novels dealing with the favorite post-cyberpunk theme of The Impact of Technology on Society (tm). I'm a fan, have read most of the novels, and even got all the way through QuickSilver. If any of this interests you, I'd recommend starting with Snow Crash for the fiction, and I think you can find some of his non-fiction on the Web. Btw, his Cryptonomicon was "echt geek", with a pretty good story and another memorable character (Bobby Shaftoe).

Re:The Nexus of Confusion Is Located: +1, Patrioti

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Except for the part about being true.

I'm completely off-topic, but I'm gonna get this out there in this thread anyway: the notion of a presidential vacation is a fucking joke. The president is on vacation right now; he's was at his ranch yesterday. What did he do? He got up before sunrise for about half a dozen of his regular daily briefings. He met with senior staff over breakfast. He made about a hundred phone calls. And, oh yeah, he spent half the day with the president of Egypt.

And that's a day off.

I think it's about time we put the whole "presidential vacation" meme to bed.

Visit Neal Stephenson on the web at:

[trickofperspective]

A somewhat more focused website than the link provided above (which essentially just recreates the wikipedia with references to the events of Stephenson's books).

Re:Visit Neal Stephenson on the web at:

[yppiz]

I just wanted to clear up one point about the Metaweb (the site linked to in the article).

I'm one of the Metaweb administrators; I am also a Wikipedia administrator. The two sites run the same software - Mediawiki - but have different goals.

For a summary of the differences, see the Metaweb vs Wikipedia FAQ

The Metaweb currently has extensive annotations on Quicksilver, many written by Neal, but also many contributed by readers. I hope that any Slashdot readers who are interested in The Confusion and would like to annotate the book will participate on the Metaweb.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Re:Visit Neal Stephenson on the web at:

[trickofperspective]

I don't mean to disparage the goals of the Metaweb at all and I'll readily admit that I find many of the posts and commentary there illuminating and interesting (esp. Neal's). I understand that one is an encyclopedia and the other an experiment in presenting information in new ways.

But, to be fair, a great deal (I'd be willing to go so far as to say a majority) of the content I've read there has been cut-and-pasted wholesale from the wikipedia -- often entire entries with no additional info added. At present, the content and the presentation share so much in common that I don't personally find Metaweb useful or particularly innovative.

Which is not to say that it won't become so at some time in the future, but it seems as if it's well past critical mass in its current incarnation... contributions have dwindled to pretty much a single user (stsparky) and the information is mired down in excessive cross reference with no clear structure or vision.

-Trick

fuck fuck fuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

i fail it!

must... commit... suicide...

It's called fleshing out a character

[gclef]

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.

Re:It's called fleshing out a character

[sinergy]

...Only in Turing's case, it isn't fiction.

Re:It's called fleshing out a character

[Cpt_Kirks]

...You mean Randy ISN'T addicted to the Cap'n?

Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward spi

[drdread]

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. :(

Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality

[sdedeo]

The weird ickyness kind of pervades your post here, but the ordinary viewer might be interested to know that Turing was hounded by the British government because of his sexuality, and forced to undergo weird pseudoscience injections of estrogen.

If that isn't a creepy tragedy that inspires sympathy (and also a fascinating story), I don't know what is. Scientist saves country, is slightly off-beat, is forced into suicidal depression by same government because of said off-beatness.

Meanwhile, if you want to watch persecuted Christian characters, why not go with the other fifty million people and watch Mel Gibson's film?

Re:Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting penis in anus isn't slightly off-beat.

It's batshit insane.

Re:Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, isn't Gibson's film about a persecuted Jewish character?

Re:Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling Christ a "Christian character" is like calling Walt a Disney character. Regardless of your religious views, it's just plain clueless.

Re:Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality

[Elwood P Dowd]

More heterosexuals do that than homosexuals, troll.

Re:Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me, sir.

Anus is a one way road... no self-respecting human would put their penis in a collision route with feces. Doesn't matter if the anus is attached to a male or female.

Re:Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality

[Elwood P Dowd]

I don't care what you do. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Plenty of queers don't do it at all. Plenty of straights do.

If you consider this a moral issue, and want to divide things up based upon sexuality, lesbians are probably the only ones with a moral high ground.

IHBT. IHL. HAND.

Re:Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

To be a Christian is to follow Christ. Follow in the sense of leading a life like Christ, daily taking up our cross. Ergo Christ was a Christian, even if not in the historical sense.

Re:Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling Christ a "Christian character" is like calling Walt a Disney character. Regardless of your religious views, it's just plain clueless.

Well, no, if you believe the Christian Bible is a work of fiction, then Christ would be a fictional character in the Bible.

Re:Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality

[Anonymous Coward]

If you consider this a moral issue, and want to divide things up based upon sexuality, lesbians are probably the only ones with a moral high ground.

Well, there's always fisting...

Amazon says:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you "got through" Cryptonomicon, didn't finish Quicksilver, and then bought "three Pratchetts"
You might also like:
Harry Potter and Sorcerer's Stoner
The Sword of Shanarra
The Mouse and the Motorcycle

Well ok sorry but you get the idea.

Re:Amazon says:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't really get the idea.
Oh, I see. I'm supposed to be, like, illiterate and stuff because I don't appreciate the fine works of... Neal Stephenson? Yeah.

Re:Amazon says:

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, not because you don't appreciate Neal, that's a matter of taste, but because you put Pratchett in the same sentence. Like, you can hate Thomas Pynchon and stuff for good reasons, but not say he sucks next to Michael Crichton. Yeah. Exactly.

Re:Amazon says:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I read Cryptonomicon (pretty decent although it has its flaws) and I've read a couple of Terry Pratchett books (currently reading Nightwatch) and I'd say they ABSOLUTELY can be compared.

What is strange is you comparing Thomas Pynchon to Neal Stephenson.

Stephenson, Pratchett and Crichton can all definitely be compared to each other.

(1) They all write for a popular audience(i.e pretty accessible).

(2) None of them is going to be up for a Nobel Prize or a Booker award or anything like that any time soon.

Crichton is very directly commercial with little artistic pretence and Pratchett mostly goes for the comedy.

Likewise it would be difficult to argue that Stephenson became famous based on his artistic merits as opposed to the ENTERTAINMENT value of his works.

This is not to denigrate them in any way, they are all good at what they do.

They are just not trying to do the same thing that Thomas Pynchon or Phillip Roth is trying to do.

To put it another way, I'd be curious to see your argument why Stephenson cannot be compared to Pratchett.

Re:Amazon says:

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'd be curious to see your argument why Stephenson cannot be compared to Pratchett.

NS just may be the worlds very best technical writer. I'll get hearty guffaws from people who know they're much more knowledgable and wise when it comes to certain technologies, but that's not the point. Those same people will never make something like laying transatlanic com lines fascinating, or compare BeOS to a Batmobile and have it be "+5 Insightful". It is a rare and much appreciated gift to be able to do that. Is it an art? Maybe.

Pratchett does a fine job at what a lot of writers do a fine job at.

Obligatpry Debian plug

[martinde]

Neal Stephenson is a Debian user. See for yourself. I once saw a quote that he liked Debian because of the huge number of bugs in the database. (He liked that Debian is open - not that it has a huge number of bugs ;-))

Re:Obligatpry Debian plug

[Halfbaked Plan]

I'd be a Debian user, too. Except every time I install it, and that has been on Intel boxes, SparcStations, and an RS/6000 box, I find myself mired in the dreaded 'dpkg swamp' and can't get my way out of it.

So I use NetBSD, and Slackware, and even Solaris. I don't think my problem is that I don't know how to install Unix. I started working with this stuff back in 1993 and have installed Slackware, RedHat, Yggdrasil Linux; FreeBSD, OpenBSD, AIX, HP-UX, A-UX, IRIX, Solaris, and even Xenix. Not all of those are 'plug in the CD and watch. But none of them land me mired in a swamp of dependency bullshit.

Re:Obligatpry Debian plug

[Anonymous Coward]

Dependency problems on Debian, so you use Slackware? Surely you're trolling. Apt-get automatically calculates dependencies, downloads and installs all the required packages, removes conflicting packages if necessary, and can handle a major-version-number distro upgrade with a single command, in many cases without rebooting. Install the base system with none of the optional packages, don't bother with tasksel or dselect, then just apt-get whichever applications you need and all the dependencies will be resolved automatically.

man apt-get

Newton was not homosexual

[Anonymous Coward]

Isaac Newton was celibate. He was not homosexual. The revisionist historians in the homosexual lobby would like you to believe that every single historical figure who never married was homosexual, but that's simply ridiculous. Heck, they've even said the same thing about William Shakespeare. They are so intent on being able to point fingers and say "Look, he was one of us!" that they don't realize that they are destroying the reputations of fine men who deserve much better than slander and innuendo. Or maybe they do realize it and just don't care.

Either way, Stephenson is not to be believed on this particular issue.

Re:Newton was not homosexual

[Xeger]

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.

Re:Newton was not homosexual

[rjh]

I disagree with the "almost certainly", if only because to this day we still don't know who wrote a lot of Shakespeare's stuff. Did Will Shakespeare really write everything we associate with him? Or were the plays written by Francis Bacon, who gave them to Shakespeare to publish under his name so that Bacon could avoid the scandal of associating with actors? The editions of plays we have right now, are they accurate editions, or were they "improved" a little bit by successive publishers who wanted to change a line here or there? Did ... etcetera. There's a lot of academic discussion about the authorship of Shakespeare, with very few absolute facts known.

Given how little we definitively know about the authorship of many of Shakespearean works, I think it's a little rash to try and describe who Will Shakespeare was when we don't know for a fact who wrote the things on which we're drawing our conclusions.

Re:Newton was not homosexual

[Xeger]

Good point. I concede. One thing is certain however: if Shakespeare were still around, I'd hit dat. ;-)

Re:Newton was not homosexual

[Anonymous Coward]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if Shakespeare were around today you would sleep with him.

On what are you basing this? His physical appearance?(seems pretty ordinary to me) Or mostly an appreciation of his talents?

Also are we talking same sex here or opposite sex?

These are genuine questions, your post rather intrigued me.

Re:Newton was not homosexual

[Xeger]

Mostly I base my decision to sleep with him on an appreciation of his talents. Now that I think about it, though, my decision is probably influenced by the fact that Joseph Fiennes portrayed him in _Shakespeare In Love_. My mental image of a young Will Shakespeare has been forever altered to resembled a rugged, moderately attractive Hollywood actor.

If I found myself in a situation where sex with Shakespeare were a distinct possibility, and if he were butt-ugly in the flesh, then perhaps I might feel differently.

As for sexual polarity: I'm a man, meaning that any carnal relation with Shakespeare would be a same-sex affair. Although I'm mainly interested in women at this point in my life, I'm always open to possibilities and Shakespeare wouldn't be the first man I've slept with. So my remark isn't as groundbreaking as it might first have seemed.

By and large, I expect that even the most devoted of Will's heterosexual male fans would be unwilling to drop trou for the Bard. But among those of us who like a little variety in our love lives, it's not a radical idea.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[TwistedGreen]

I frequently felt like the author was writing just to "hear himself type."

Actually, Quicksilver was written with a pen and paper.

Maybe it's an ink company conspiracy.

But...

[jdawg]

But I haven't finished _Quicksilver_ yet, you insensitive clod!

It dawns on me...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The guy makes all of his heroes gay.

2) The guy has no idea of how to write male/female dialog.

3) so a reasonable conclusion about him is that....??????

4) I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist...

5) I wonder if he's ever included a turkish prison scene in any book?

6) Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Re:It dawns on me...

[Obyron]

7) Profit.

Oh come on. Someone had to do it.

Just don't read Snowcrash

[aeoo]

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. :)

Re:Just don't read Snowcrash

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it?

Perhaps This is more your speed.

Re:Just don't read Snowcrash

[aeoo]

Judging by its cover, I doubt it's my speed. I don't mind some slowness in the book if it's deep. For example, I much prefer latter Dune books, which are considered "slower".

Really, I wish Frank could be resurrected so he could finish Dune. And don't even try to tell me about the Frank-wannabe impostors.

I also really liked Fire in the Deep and many other Sci Fi classics. They are classics for a good reason of course. But, it seems like many think Neal is classic, and this is what boggles my mind.

Re:Just don't read Snowcrash

[Scrameustache]

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 ;-)

Re:Just don't read Snowcrash

[himself]

>
> Why do people like stuff like Cryptonomicon? I've read a hundred pages or so and I just couldn't take it.
>
Because he gets so much of it *right*, and he "wastes" all that on the background. Research that some writers would do for a non-fiction book or article, Stephenson just hoses around his novels for effect, for atmosphere, and for authenticity. It's the sheer profligacy that brings such a stupid grin to my face.
I read _Cryptonomicon_ when it came out, and I liked it...but I wondered at the veracity of all the code-breaking stuff and simply threw up my hands in the face of the details about WWII history.
Fast forward to three years later, and I have recently wrapped up a seventy-page history on my grandfather's WWII service in the Southwest Pacific (viz., Leyte, Palawan, and Morotai) as an intelligence evaluation officer. I went back and re-read _Cryptonomicon_ and I see that prety much every detail of the code-breaking techniques and history that Stephenson uses [as background!] is accurate.
Sure, the broad plot device of the submarine full of gold may be made up (and Qwlghm is fake and the cave must be hokum) -- but given the rate at which FOIA requests are processed and things are declassified from that era, it may yet turn out to be true. :7)
Now, when I know for a fact that Stephenson gets that much right in one book, and then I consider the fictional details he also "got right" (if only consistently, however implausibly) in _Snowcrash_ and _The Diamond Age_, I'll buy anything this guy wrote. The quality of the work he produces should put a burning blush of shame on the cheeks of whoever wrote 95% of the stuff published this year.
And I'm an English major, not some CS dork, so typos and all, I have a sheepskin that says my opinion on books counts extra.

Re:Just don't read Snowcrash

[Captain Splendid]

I'm with you, I think Bobby Shaftoe is one of the greatest characters ever created, and despite the Waterhouse sections being fascinating, the Shaftoe portions of Cryptonomicon are my favorite.

Hell, I'm halfway through my second go on the book.

Re:Just don't read Snowcrash

[aeoo]

Nice. I was looking for some reply like this. So, if I understand you correctly, people enjoy how Neal peppers his work with various historical accuracies.

That's basically it, right? So, if I think that historical accuracies are not all that interesting or insightful without a proper context, then I feel justified in not liking Neal's work.

For example, a great work that masterfully blends history and fiction is The Count of Monte Cristo. I have read a Russian translation of this masterpiece and I think there is not a finer book that entertains, teaches history, and gives such deep insight into people's souls, all at the same time. Not a single word is out of place, not a single description is irrelevant. It all fits and clicks together and pages just turn and turn themselves. The book practically reads itself. Neal has, in my opinion, a loooooonnggggg loonnggg way to go to reach this level of mastery. Heck, I shouldn't even try to compare him with Dumas, they don't play in the same leage.

It's not enough to just sprinkle various historically accurate tidbits in order to create a worthy work of art.

Why do we read? I suggest that few people read to gather trivia. We read mainly for two reasons: for entertainment and for insight (and by "insight" I mean deep things, things of the soul, and not trivial "insight" that is often tinkered with in Sci-Fi books, like "if we had 3 brains instead of one, we'd be like this", yuck). So, Snowcrash is entertaining and it is somewhat insightful. In particular, I think we can all relate to the political commentary it makes. But it does very little to expand human soul at the deepest levels. So it's mostly a fun book. I don't think I am a snob and I do read for fun. I don't care if the book is insightful if it's fun. But by G-D, if the book is not fun, it better be insightful and it better not spam me with trivia.

Ok, admittedly I am a CS dork, and so my opinion doesn't really count, but here it is anyway.

Re:Just don't read Snowcrash

[brank]

Neal has, in my opinion, a loooooonnggggg loonnggg way to go to reach this level of mastery. Heck, I shouldn't even try to compare him with Dumas, they don't play in the same leage.

Actually, as someone who has read the complete works of both, I think the comparison is quite apt. Have you read Dumas's Twenty Years After or Ten Years Later?

If The Count of Monte Cristo is Dumas's Snow Crash and The Three Musketeers is the Cryptonomicon, those two1 are his Baroque Cycle. More or less bearable, and in parts quite interesting, but... lacking. And for the same reason: too many digressions into the corners of the past the author is emotionally attached to.

1: or three or four or however many volumes a given edition is split into.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[mrawl]

Completely agree. Snowcrash was brilliant. Hilarious, scary, insightful, new, fresh, amazing. Cryptonomicon was good, but not as good (what's with Enoch Root - he Stephenson's Ellsworth Toohey?) and Quicksilver is just a complete yawn. I'm at about p 250 and had to divert to Dan Brown before I passed out with boredom. It does show some flashes of Stephenson's brilliance, but only rarely. I'm praying it gets better, if it doesn't pick up I'm gonna have to bail on the whole series.

Re:The Nexus of Confusion Is Located: +1, Patrioti

[Anonymous Coward]

Fictitious hack author in a Kurt Vonnegut story, sort of a persona for Vonnegut, himself. Another author wrote a book under the name, once.

Joke in today's newspaper

[Anonymous Coward]

Customer: Would you advise me to have this 17th century decorative vase repaired?

Antique Dealer: I'd say don't fix it unless it's baroque.

Re:The Nexus of Confusion Is Located: +1, Patrioti

[Chuck Bucket]

Fine, but can you name another President that wasn't in DC for almost 20% of his presidency? http://lefttochance.com/taxonomy/page/or/12 So we won't call it a vacation, but why doesn't he stay in DC?

DISCLAIMER: I live just south of Crawford, in Austin

CB

I finished Quicksilver

[QEDog]

I was probably one of the few people that finished Quicksilver. It was slow, slow, slow and boring with some minor fun parts. Newton was fun, Shaftoe was fun, the rest was a pain to read. It went everywhere and nowhere. I still don't feel it moving anywhere. After 900 pages I demand to get at least something from a book, besides tired biceps (that thing is heavy). He needs and editor. He couldn't have condensed all that crap into 300 pages of pretty good stuff. Should I even bother reading Confusion? The review is not very helpful, it talks about the plot, but not a lot about if it is a good book or no.

Had mine for 1.5 weeks already

[pp]

And finished it a few days ago (amazon.co.uk has had it since the 1st)

Without spoiling the plot too much, I'd recommend it for fans of Quicksilver, even though unlike the original reviewer, I didn't think it was as good as the first book.

I really liked the "history" of modern science bits in Quicksilver, which were lacking in "The Confusion". (Economy and exotic locations being the theme for this book, which aren't as cool as science :-) ). Written as well as the first one, in the style one either hates or likes. I don't mind the extended descriptions as I'm a speed-reader when I decide to do so :-)

Confusion by New 0rder

[Deraj DeZine]

Anyone remember that song? From the rave in Blade.

Confusion by New 0rder. Best. Rave. Ever.

Re:The problem with Stephenson is male-female dial

[jpetts]

Stephenson makes great use of speculative history. He postulates some great "what if" scenarios arising from past events and uses them to weave an alternative present.

They are OK, I think, but not great. For the absolute best I've come across in alternate present novels, check out Pavane by Keith Roberts, who sadly died in 2000.

Ho hum.

[Anonymous Meoward]

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.

Re:The problem with Stephenson is male-female dial

[Scrameustache]

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! ;-)

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[sketi]

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.

Book needs an editor? Wait for the book-on-tape

[Stroman Rebar]

The great thing about abridged books is that it really forces a long-winded author to get off his cliche and tell the story. So, with a 900 page book, you can cut it down to a "reasonable" 8 hours of tape. Long-winded tomes are about the only time I recommend abridgements, though. While it is possible to cut a 300 page novel down to a 3 hour cassette, IMHO there usually isn't enough left to trouble yourself with. And just as a point of reference, I have greatly enjoyed most of Stephenson's work, but the first half of Quicksilver did not flow like its namesake. The middle half did pick up considerably with the introduction of the Shaftoe brothers. So I will give it a try.

Neal shot his wad on Quicksilver

[Ars-Fartsica]

This brick was such a tiresome chore that I don't see how many people will follow this tedium through to its unfortunate conclusion.

Neal, fire your editor.

Re:Neal shot his wad on Quicksilver

[My_Dirty_Facist_Ass]

"...Neal, fire your editor..."

Rather: Neal, hire an editor.

Re:Neal shot his wad on Quicksilver

[Anonymous Coward]

well, I liked it. so much so that I haven't finished it because I don't have a copy of The Confusion yet.

the endless digressions are what make it fun, for me, anyway.

"sometimes you just have to let art.... flow.... over you..."

"Confusion" is NOT history...

[Android23]

Dude, it's a fictional book. It's historic fiction, but it's still fiction. He could've made Newton into a cross dresser if he felt like it.

Jeez.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[taniwha]

I think the big problem with Quicksilver is that it's the first bookm in a big trilogy, not a standalone book in it's own right - reading it I assumed it was setting me up with all the information I'll need to read the next two .... problem is that won't be for a while and by then I'll have forgotten a lot.

I think that for a work that large you really do need to work on making the story more satisfying at the points along the way too

Re:The problem with Stephenson is male-female dial

[Anonymous Cow herd]

What about eliza made you feel supposed to be banter?

Re:sexuality or simply Confusion?

[xtermin8]

With that title I wouldn't be surprised if the book was only about Newton's sexuality. BTW Have you tried reading Newton's more esoteric writings. He was really weird!

MOD PARENT UP

[JLyle]

What about eliza made you feel supposed to be banter?

+5, Funny ;)

Stepheson is an EMACS user?

[harmonics]

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

Probably won't read it

[LoFat ByLine]

I've enjoyed just about all of Stephenson's novels; Cryptonomicon was a personal favourite and the best creative expression of the late 90s geek zeitgeist that I think we're likely to get.

But ah, then we come to Quicksilver. Parts were entertaining, but it didn't hang together, and as others have pointed out there's a lot of filler between the good bits. From my perspective, too much work for too little reward.

The problem for me is not the number of digressions and asides; the problem is the digressions in Quicksilver are mostly not that interesting.

I get the sense that Stephenson is a little too hemmed in by history; his imagination is weighed down by the need to at least marginally respect period detail (though he doesn't mind bending it on occasion).

And maybe it's because his most interesting writing focusses on technology, and there wasn't as much of that back then. In Quicksilver he focusses much more on character and plot, which aren't his strong points as a writer.

Re:Probably won't read it

[The-Dalai-LLama]

The problem for me is not the number of digressions and asides...

Speaking of digressions and asides....House of Leaves.

The Dalai Llama
...this post is an aside... but I digress...

Obligatory Gentoo plug

[ignorant_newbie]

I'd be a debian user, also, except for gentoo(www.gentoo.org). All the advantages of FreeBSD, without having to wait for them to finish 5.0

On sale for a week or two

[eddie can read]

I don't understand the bit about it being "released today". I bought it at Wordsworth in Harvard Square at least a week ago, more like two I think.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[cbiffle]

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.

Metaweb

[Bullet-Dodger]

Didn't see it mentioned so, The Metaweb is Stephenson's wiki about Quicksilver (presumably information on the rest of the trilogy will be added). It's very interesting, has all kinds of information on the people and ideas in the book. Especially the annotations, add a lot of interesting background and details.

Re:Metaweb

[Bullet-Dodger]

Crap, ignore the above, I seem to be blind today.

Re:Metaweb

[Bullet-Dodger]

Dear lord, I've been modded up for mistakenly repeating something from the post. Well, as long I have this chance I'd like a pony too. I'll name her princess and I'll ride her every day!

it's even worse when they're not talking

[Doktor Memory]

The sex scene in Cryptonomicon was quite possibly the worst one ever written, including the ones written by Newt Gingrich. Serious Bulwar-Lytton territory.

Re:it's even worse when they're not talking

[Dr. Smeegee]

I thought it was about the most accurate ever.

Have you ever been madly in love with someone who is kept from you by circumstance? That first encounter ain't usually the stuff dreams are made of - I have seen a good facimile of America Shaftoe's bemused smile from my wife after a nekkid ending to a long seperation.

Love ain't porn.

Re:The Nexus of Confusion Is Located: +1, Patrioti

[majestyk2000]

Maybe he's afraid Al Qaeda isn't going to miss the White House next time.

No no no.

[Doktor Memory]

Save Zodiac for last. That way, after flogging yourself through his increasingly turgid prose, increasingly leaden dialog, and increasing immunity to proper editing, you can enjoy the treat of a Neal Stephenson novel with a tight plot, believable characters (well, by comparison) and an actual ending.

Pant...pant...pant...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Hey, what page do they wire the routers on?

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[Jetifi]

The lumber cartel strikes again :-)

NYT Bestsellers appeal to more than 20-somethings

[jonskerr]

>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.

I can understand the negative attitude

[wift]

I had to struggle through Quicksilver but I did enjoy it. I should reread it to better understand it but really don't have the time. Some people like a simple straight forward story without having to think about it. Cryptonomicon is my all time favorite hands-down. It did start slow and if you gave up on it early then expect to miss out on a lot of good things in life.

Question for President Cheney's Press Conference:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr President: Why does The United States of America, the only country that supports freedom in the world, support religious repression in Uzbekistan?

Thanks for nothing,
Kilgore Trout

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[Witchblade]

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.

I don't have a history book in front of me, but to the best of my knowledge Newton never married. I think he mayhave proposed to a woman once, but was rejected. I think the evidence comes from one letter that isn't really clear.

Newton had several roommates, all young men except for late in his life he took in his niece. Many accounts by others from that time seem to strongly imply that there were romantic relationships between Newton and one or two men, but most likely he did maintain his virginity until he died. Although the suggestion that he strictly regarded that as being between a man and a woman sounds very probable, also.

If someone can recall more details, or better yet has a reliable biography handy please post. But I'm pretty damn certain Sir Isaac never had a Lady Newton.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Well, given that Cryptonomicon was published first, I guess that you have things pretty much backwards. The price you have to pay for a bloated, poorly edited, grammatically and spelling challenged piece of drivel is that Cryptonomicon was just as long as it needed to be. And even that doesn't make much sense. I guess that the moral of this story is that even idiots know how to read. They just can't reason.

Quicksilver - Ouch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why Quicksilver sucked: research. Sheer weight of research.

A dangerous trap. I'm really not that interested in the sheer weight of (irrelevant) historical detail in Quicksilver. But Stephenson has done his time in the library and you are damn well going to hear it. All of it. Also, being of the UKian disposition seemed to compound things. The vast majority of this stuff is school history and common knowledge here anyway, which just made it even more tiresome. I finished it in a few days, but I have no desire to repeat the experience.

Its a shame really because there are some nice ideas therein. Confusion can stay on the shelf as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[elmegil]

had to divert to Dan Brown before I passed out with boredom.

So you're saying you don't give a damn if the facts are straight, as long as it's a page turner? Bah. Anyone who can confuse the theory of public key cryptography with the mechanics of how PGP works (see digital fortress, somewhere in the first couple chapters, 'cos that's all I could stomach) needs to do more homework. You can argue quite plausibly that Stephenson needs to be edited, but don't compare him to Brown, please.

One Opinion - So Much Verbose Crap

[Outland Traveller]

Quicksilver - I like to finish what I start, but this book sure made it difficult. I will certainly not read such a long book from Mr. Stephenson again unless the reviews are amazing.

Despite loving Snowcrash and Cryptonomicon, I couldn't find a way to like this book.

Pros:

- The vagabond adventures

- A glimpse into the cutting edge of 17th century science, politics, and warfare both on sea and on land.

- The provocative moral shades expressed by various characters.

Cons:

- "I'm so clever" forced historical situations, where the author has a historical figure preciently hint at something in the modern day. Canal-rage, indeed.

- Romance novel-esque formulatic building and eventual climax of achievements with biological plumbing, with empasis on things some people may consider odd or just disgusting. How many people enjoy reading about scooping feces out of baby mouths inside the womb with ones hand?

- Loose ends left dangling everywhere

- Too much mixing of things that are historically accurate with things that require significant suspension of disbelief. The world isn't treated consistently enough to be immersive.

- Underwhelming end, even for the first part of a trilogy

- Underdeveloped primary character, while lavishing enormous energy on a carnival of side-characters.

- 700+ pages of tedium, 200 pages of interest.

Re:One Opinion - So Much Verbose Crap

[Scrameustache]

Despite loving Snowcrash and Cryptonomicon, I couldn't find a way to like this book.

I didn't enjoy it as much as the rest of his work, but I still liked it and am anxious to get my hands on the sequels.

There's a lot of good stuff in there, and the promise of more good stuff to come.

[...] forced historical situations, where the author has a historical figure preciently hint at something in the modern day. Canal-rage, indeed.


I saw that more as a "nothing new under the sun" thing.

How many people enjoy reading about scooping feces out of baby mouths inside the womb with ones hand?

Lets see...
Zodiac: Diarrhea
Snow Crash: Diarrhea
Diamond Age: Diarrhea, rape, and a victorian man getting "buggered".
Cryptonomicon: Diarrhea (90's Waterhouse, Shaftoe, and the japanese dude) and getting covered in pig feces, mouth open.

Face it, Stephenson has gastric issues. Its in all his books.

Loose ends left dangling everywhere

Hello? Part one of a trilogy...ring a bell?

Underwhelming end, even for the first part of a trilogy

What? That was the most powerfull and memorable end to a Stephenson novel, ever. He usually doesn't end his stories as much as stop writing them suddenly. And the description of what poor Waterhouse was about to go through chilled me...

Thats the problem

[BlightThePower]

...if you are a European reader. It seems the author came over and got drunk on the depth of research he could do. And then insisted on putting all of it in. Its rather tiresome you've had the standard education in the history of these things, you're constantly waiting to be hit in the face with the next great historical event.

Clarrification

[BlightThePower]

Sorry, I realised that didnt make a lot sense; the problem is that his characters turn up at each and every major historical event. This is a device that works fine for humour of the Blackadder/Flash (George MacDonald Fraser) type which attempts to put an amusingly subversive spin on famous events. But in Quicksilver it just becomes annoying. Most other historical novelists are aware of this and use the big events sparingly (often these things happen at a distance from the main protagonists e.g., someone's brother will die in a famous battle and then they receive the news etc. etc.).

It feels contrived for me and at times it looks like hes just showing off the research.

Fuckin' A!

[jonskerr]

Finally someone who has some sense and wasn't raised by the TV. Dildo-parent says there's no Action? How about cutting Frosty the Pig away from a dead army butcher? How about skydiving onto a roof covered with spearpoints? Etc etc.. And people bitching about spelling errors? I've read every book NS has written, most of them more than once, and I've never seen anything spelled incorrectly, and I'm a stickler. And the typical /dotter spells "than" with an E in the middle.

Re:Fuckin' A!

[aeoo]

It's fun to rant isn't it? :) You know nothing about me bro. I'll clue you in. I was raised in Ukraine where we only had 3 TV channels and we pretty much didn't watch TV except once a week or so, unless you count parents watching news every day at 9pm. I want to insult you, but I won't.

Re:Fuckin' A!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ukrainian huh? Do me a favor and thank all your buddies in the Ukrainian "army" for cutting and running at the first sign of trouble in Iraq and turning an entire armory of sophisticated weapons over to the fundamentalists. That's the top quality soldiering that has kept you dirt farmers under the boots and hooves of the cossacks and their predecessors for most of your history. Most national prejudices have no foundation, but I am certain there are a number of marine's families who are going to have the "yello ukraine" to thank for loosing a mother or father in the coming months, and a lot of innocent Iraqis are going to die caught in the crossfire initiated by those weapons your "soldiers" so easily gave away.

I heard one them got killed on his way out the back door. You might want to remind his buddies that in all of history more soldiers have been killed in retreat and rout then ever have been killed by standing and fighting.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[C.Batt]

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".

Fine? Fine for a laugh maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

"Crypto's gold flowing out of the mountain was a fine ending "

No, it violated the laws of physics. You can dump a bunch of diesel into a tunnel sure. You may even get it lit (although I doubt it).

But you can't get around the fact that:

a) Diesel in the absence of oxidizer (i.e. just air) doesn't burn hot enough to melt gold

b) In an enclosed space, the oxygen would be exhausted quickly, meaning the fire would go out.

c) The gold might get singed.

Besides which, even if we ignore the laws of physics, it was a dumb ending considering his zillions of pages of build up. Its like making out with a hot chick and at the end she says "Oh, go finish yourself in the bathroom".

Really, to defend it is to defend crap on both literary and scientific levels. Please stop.

Good for Bostonians Too

[elBart0]

If you live in Boston (whether you're from here, or you're just visiting as a college student) this is a great read for someone that knows the city well. I've lived here most of my life, and was still very impressed with the overall level of accuracy of his city layout. All those little streams that I never noticed before (I'm not talking about the muddy. everyone knows about that.)
Also, his description of moving up Commonwealth Ave, on a bike, in rush hour, was spot on.

Information

[DrJAKing]

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.

Specific Quicksilver flaws

[Minna Kirai]

Several posters have pointed out some valid flaws in Quicksilver, which overall is not as good as Cryptonomicon. I'll just mention a few specific problems (particularly in comparison to Cryptonom) that haven't been discussed. All of these are more minor complaints than normally deserve mention in a book review:

• It's part of a series now. A book (or film) in a longer series is weaker in general than a standalone work. The effect is similar to how TV episodes are weaker than movies, because the obligatory continuity between installments weakens the author's freedom for each (He can't convincingly put the hero in danger in volume 2, when part 3 is still coming up).
  
  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)
• Written with pen. To "get the feel for the period technology", Quicksilver was written by hand instead of on computer. This has contributed to a less coherent and balanced flow than the predecessor book. I won't go into detail on the many small ways this has harmed the book... I'd need to annotate the text to fully explain.
• Non-preemptive multitasking. Both Crytponom and QuickSilv contain 3 distinct storylines that become increasingly more related as the plot progresses. In both books, those storylines are "Waterhouse present", "Waterhouse past", and "Shaftoe past". But Cryptonom progressed through each line concurrently, with 5-20 pages of one plot followed by a switch to another, while QuickSilv can go for 300 pages following a single thread. That makes the book much less coherent, and creates a great discontinuity whenever the jump occurs.
• Self-plagiarizing. That accusation is an exaggeration, I know. But still, both books concern the immortal Enoch Root's explorations into the secrets of national gold reserves, told from 3 threads of activity: Waterhouse the reserved mathematician, Shaftoe the iterinant warrior, and Waterhouse 50-years later (picking up the pieces).
  
  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)
• Less detailed. Compared to Cryptonom, QuickSilv spends much less verbiage providing background information on the people and places visited. And since QuickSilv is set further back in time, historical detail is even more important. Most readers were passingly familiar with 1999 Seattle, and understand the overall flow of the Second World War. But going back centuries instead of decades, typical readers will have much less idea about what to expect, and so digressive introductions (something that Stephenson apparently enjoys) would've been more helpful to them.
  
  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.
• Genetic model of aptitude. A really minor point, but it's unimpressive to see characters from the same families pl

I can't wait to read The Confusion

[Admiral1973]

I've devoured and loved all of Stephenson's books. Reading Cryptonomicon was the highlight of the summer of 2000 for me, and Quicksilver kept me entertained throughout the autumn of 2003. I read The Diamond Age on vacation in 2002, and anytime I think of that trip, I think of the book.

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.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[SaV]

If I may humbly disagree, I felt that the abrupt ending of Cryptonomicon was actually the point. The impact of the scene with the eldery Goto Dengo and Avi totally stunned me. I know there are many pages after that, a sort of wrapping up, but I thought that scene was the end, really. Directly because of that scene, the end came about and the story was resolved. I don't think that authors always have to tell the happily ever after bit, and I think Stephenson lets the readers use their imagination in a very satisfying way.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[mrawl]

I'd much rather a good N.S. read, the guy's a modern day genius. Cryptonomicon was awesome, but Snow Crash was better imho. I'm only comparing him to Brown in the sense that that's how disappointing I'm finding Quicksilver. Not just because it's slow, it also doesn't have the style, wit, sharpness or quirkiness of his classics (so far). Brown is fodder, but certainly readable. I've only read DaVinci, and just starting on Angels and Demons, half expecting it to be junk. We'll see...

Released TODAY?

[Stormie]

I saw it in a bookshop several days ago.. and I'm in Sydney, Australia. I still haven't finished reading Quicksilver though, so I didn't buy it..

Re:The Nexus of Confusion Is Located: +1, Patrioti

[susano_otter]

As telecommuting and related technologies and activities become more prevalent, more cost-effective, and more effective overall, I would expect to see a consistent trend towards Presidents doing an increasing amount of presidenting from places other than the White House.

Soon, the question will be, "why does the President bother to go the White House at all?"

Surely we can all understand the productivity and job satisfaction increases that come from working in an environment of our own choosing, tailored to meet our own personal ideas of comfort and convenience.

The Oval Office has served this nation well, as a "Fortress of Solitude" for Presidents throughtout the years before web-enabled cell phones, broadband internet, and strong encryption. Doubtless it will continue to serve in such a capacity for many years to come. But I expect that from a practical point of view, those years are numbered.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[Jonathan]

. Quicksilver is a 300 or 400 page story told in 900 pages

Well, to each their own, but really, all this "too many diversions from the plot/ too long" stuff really misses the point. Literature isn't *about* plot, any more than painting is about reproducing a scene with photographic realism. Sure pulp genre fiction often is little more than a plot (just as cheesy amateur paintings often just try to represent a house by a stream), but literature and art are capable of much more than that. Unfortunately, writers like Stephenson and Vonnegut often alienate both genre and literary readers because they use the tools of genre SF to make more serious works.

Is Stephenson getting any more concise?

[swordgeek]

One of these days I'll head back to Cryptonomicon, and have another go at it. I really want to finish this book because...well mostly because.

Still, I'm not too hopeful. I took it on a week-long holiday with no plans other than reading, and after about 200 pages, went back to reread "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Stephenson writes (or at least wrote) in a loooong, verbose, and self-consciously aware style which makes me roll my eyes. I kept thinking, "if only he had a strict editor, this might be a great book."

So has his style gotten any tighter, and as a side question, how far into Cryptonomicon do I have to get before it becomes overwhelming engrossing?

Why Neal Stephenson counts

[bluetrident]

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...

Re:The Nexus of Confusion Is Located: +1, Patrioti

[mozzis]

It might be that the President, as do other elected officials, sees Washington DC as a place which isolates them from reality rather than connects them to it.

Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward

[Anonymous Coward]

Um ... check your facts.

Newton never married. For the most authoritative Newton biography, see Richard Westfall's Never at Rest. The biography rivals Stephenson's (and Newton's!) works in size, but is, I think, worth the read.

As an historical aside, for sexual exploits of Newton's time (really the next generation), read about Newton's niece Catherine Barton and/or Emilie du Chatelet, who translated the Principia into French.

Excellent News

[grent246]

When I started reading Quicksilver, I came to the horrible realisation that there were two more of these drawn out historical tomes to be released before the vaguest possibility of a new work of the calibre of Snow Crash or Cryptonomicon.

With Confusion being released its now only one more to go.

I am hoping he still has another science fiction masterpiece left after his excursion into the Baroque cycle.

Well I say woo-hoo

[ewe2]

I'll say it again: woo-hoo!

If you can't read these books, you can't read. Give up, don't bother trying, it's too hard for you.

The rest of us can enjoy one of the few interesting authors left. I just wish he'd write them faster.

Key Point of the Review

[Nepre]

...the central sections of all of Stephenson's novels have been excellent; it is endings with which he displays the greatest difficulty. And the ending is still eight or nine hundred pages distant.

I agree whole-heartedly. This is Stephenson's big problem. He can't end a book! His stories are inspired; but by the end they just spiral out of control and leave the reader disappointed. I guess with him it's the journey, not the destination...

The thing that concerns me is that he calls this the Baroque "cycle". Does that mean that it never ends? I don't want to spend my time reading 1800+ pages and then be left hanging out to dry.

This will never be read, but...

[cr0sh]

I am in the middle of reading Quicksilver, reread Crypto prior to munching into it so I knew where everything was. As I was rereading it, then reading Quicksilver - I can't help but wonder if Stephenson isn't trying to teach the reader something. Something fundamental, something needed in this world...

I am not sure what it could be, but I know it has to do with business, technology, finance, governments (past, current, and future) - and where it is all headed - or could head, if we geeks of the world would just get our damn act together and make it happen...

But he feels that we lack some information - information about the world that we could only gain if we were all super-well read (some of us are, but not all of us), versed in world history and business, and how it all interelates.

I wonder if he is doing this to spur on such things like the Free State project, or something similar? How many of you have thought "How can I escape from the tyranny that is our world?" - but didn't know how? Where to get the resources, the money, everything needed to start a country? Is it even possible today?

In Crypto, he showed one possible way. In Quicksilver - he is showing how it was done long ago. We cringe and wonder today over how corporations are controlling our world, but we have yet to see (and pray we never do!) something on the order of the East India Company - a world dominating corporation that lasted nearly 200 years, had a standing army and navy, and it's own country to boot (India) - before the British finally ousted them and broke them up.

Does anyone here think such a thing couldn't happen again? Have any of you paid attention to the rise of private companies that provide private "security" training and weapons systems? What about all the of the oil companies gradually buying each other up - could Standard Oil come back from the dead?

I think Neal may be trying to teach us something, if only we would look and learn...

Argh!

[bad_fx]

Next time preface your spoilers with a **Spoilers** note of some kind. Bastard.