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...""
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???)
"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."
You've got the answer right there. Insight. Great SF writers have insights that are way beyond a popular fiction hack. Asimov projected a few simple ideas into the future, explored their impacts on society, and imagined solutions that future scientists might come up with to solve the problems that arise from new technology. Many of the ideas that SF writers like Asimov and Clarke (geosyncronous satellites, anyone?) have come up with have had real impact on our world.
No sig? Sigh...
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, 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.