Slashdot Mirror
Salon Interviews Neal Stephenson
edibleplastic writes "Salon has a great interview with Neal Stephenson, author of such science fiction favorites as Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, and Quicksilver. He discusses his views on the scientific community (both past and present), the world of science fiction, and writing in general. "I think there are common threads between writing and programming... All I'm saying is that the thing you're making -- the novel or the computer program -- has got a very complicated and finely wrought hierarchical structure to it. The structure has to work right or the whole thing fails. But the only way you can work on it is by hitting one character at a time...""
Why do people treat fiction authors liek gurus? I saw a robotics aritcleon here the other day where people were seriously talking about Asimov's 3 laws of robotics like they were actually applicable to real life.
I don't understand. You don't see lawyers clamoring at the bit for Grisham's insights into their world, but you see IT dorks hanging on every word a sci-fi author drops like he just came down from teh mountain with the 10 tips to avoid being outsourced chiseled into two stone tablets.
All I'm saying is that the thing you're making -- the novel or the computer program -- has got a very complicated and finely wrought hierarchical structure to it
Programming is becoming the the new age lemming work for the 21st century. Writing "a great story" takes the creative juices and adds the authors personality and unique style. Add "unique" style to code and you have just become a sloppy programmer.
I think there are common threads between writing and programming
Except at the end of a program, you have close all your open brackets. And, programs do not need to have overblown hollywood showdowns as endings --
seriously, I was fascinated by NS's books. I read Snowcrash, Diamond Age (the first novel I read on my cellphone, commuting), Cryptonomicon --- every one of these books made me unable to put them down during their first chapters, and had me cringing more and more towards their less than satisfying resolutions. This may be just a matter of taste, though. (But seriously -- mind-controlling magic qualities of the old sumerian language???)
However, the morility plays that have shown up in Grisham novels that I've read were not profound. They were just extensions or plays off of what we already know are current consequences of laws.
On the other hand, Asimov (and I'd point out Philip Dick) put a lot of thought into the moral and ethical issues that could come out of technology that doesn't yet exist.
Some of these predictions have already come true, because they were both profound and well thought out. There has been scientific research into robotics based on ideas from Asimov and Dick.
They all tell good stories, but the bonus of SciFi is the profound consideration of things that could someday become reality.
That said, there are things suggested by SciFi writers that are absurd. But people use thier own judgement as to whether these ideas have merit. Obviously, a lot of people have respect for Asimov's ideas. I think your best bet is to read some Asimov books and judge his ideas in their original context.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
I mean, come on, it's fiction! It's at least as believable as Elven magic...
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
I mean, the guy was describing the sound of a pipe organ for two pages
And, did you READ those two pages? I did, and I not only learned quite a bit, but I found myself wanting to learn more!
I hate reading this kind of thing because it reminds me that we're now in the anti-erudite phase of American history. This happens periodically in most societies, and it's not surprising, but that doesn't mean I'm not saddened by it. Was a time that a guy writing a book, and spending two well-researched pages on a topic as obscure as how a pipe organ works would be welcomed and enjoyed for what it is, but now we have to slap the guy down for -- and I'm not making this up, it's a quote from the OP -- being "the literary equivalent of a nerdy kid who won't shut up about how smart he is."
It's not like Stephenson says, "hey, I'm smart, wanna see? huh? huh? huh?" No, he just writes about a wide range of technical and social issues, layering them with the fruits of his research.
Now, you want to talk about structure, we can get into that. I think his structure sucks, especially his endings. But, I put up with that because a) he has great ideas b) his characters react to those great ideas in interesting ways and c) I come out of one of his books knowing more, and having thought more about what I did know, than I did going in. Is that an unreasonable reaction to a good book?
If Stephenson an, say, Banks (or any other writer who can mold a storyline around a story without leaving stretch-marks) ever collaborated the result would be quite interesting to watch.
I've read both, and I prefer Snow Crash, because...
1. More consistant pacing. Cryptonomicon meanders in places.
2. Cryptonomicon starts so, and ends so fast you'd miss it if you blinked. It's as if his editor told him to hurry the book up, and Stephenson crammed the ending into as short a space as possible. Diamond Age suffers from this even further, stuffing as much as possible into the ending chapter. An epilogue would be so appreciated. Snow Crash ends a lot better, and seems better planned out.
3. Can't figure out why you think Snow Crash is dull. Personally, I found Cryptonomicon to be dull in a few parts, whilst Snow Crash kept up its fast pacing most all the way through.
Personally, I far prefer Snow Crash over Cryptonomicon. It's also the only Neal Stephenson book I've read that doesn't seem to much suffer from a rushed ending.
Snowcrash is 1 part nifty and 3 parts lame as hell. I'm sorry, I just wasn't that big a fan of the book... it didn't even come close to suspending my disbelief. Look at the main character:
1) He invented half the virtual world, knew all its tricks, wrote the swordfighting code, etc.
2) He was a master swordfighter himself.
3) He owned like the fastest and coolest car ever.
4) But as the book starts, he's living in a storage container and working as a pizza boy? Er... huh?
5) Not to mention, he's like 30 years old. There's no way anyone can accomplish this in 30 years of *work*, much less 15 or so.
Not even close to believable.
Oh, and then there were the stupid pointless scenes of gore that made me almost puke. (One of the cops getting impaled, for instance... had nothing to do with the story, was just there to gross you out.)
That said, the premise of the book was quite clever... but the lameness outweighed the coolness by quite a bit. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, of course, but Snowcrash was the first, and last, Stephenson I'll read.
Comment of the year
He just needs a good editor.
Don't even start Quicksilver, then.
Halfway through Cryptonomicon, I thought is was one of the best books I'd read. I didn't feel that way by the end, for other reasons.
The entire time I was reading Quicksilver, I thought "edit, edit, edit".
The book should have been about half as long, and nothing would have been lost.
(there are some good parts in Quicksilver, but the majority is fluff.)
As long as you mention it, I happen to be rereading "Name of the Rose" at night lately, and my impression from the first time -- that he was self-indulgent, like you're saying -- is basically completely gone by now. The book's really written cleanly, it works incredibly well. Also I'm finding his characters are more complete than I'd remembered them. (The movie, though, stunk.)
I truly hate the idea that all fiction has to be so "tight" that every word drives the plot forward another step. If an author wants to assume I'm bright and curious enough to read two pages about pipe organs, and she can write, I'm there. Not everything has to have the narrative compression of a touring Broadway show. Sometimes it's okay to assume your audience is made up of intelligent, curious people who'll stick with you a little.
Thomas Mann is another author whose stuff you probably wouldn't tolerate. Your loss, seriously. Sometimes Peter Cook's "Bedazzled" is cool, but there's a place in the world for "Doctor Faustus" too.
And okay, sometimes those learned digressions are self-conscious fat to be trimmed -- but that isn't limited to "intellectual" fiction at all. Tom Clancy's got as much worthless detail (about military hardware) as anyone. The rafts of detail are painful to wade through, for me.
So, uh, nope -- it's not as "simple as that."
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.