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...""
What do people think about Quicksilver? I am just finishing it and am very disappointed. I loved cryptonomicon but am struggling thru quicksilver. Why bring back waterhouse and the shaftoes, can't we think of new characters? And the story is dragging by. Long passages on life in feudal europe, the french, the english, the dutch, it's dull. What do other people think though?
Does anyone know if Neil is planning any near future works besides the Baroque Cycle? I loved The Cryptonomicon, but I've heard to many dissapointing things about his last two novels to invest that much time reading them. I want a sequal to Snow Crash! BTW, has anyone else noticed the between Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash and Gibson's Virtual Light? They were published at nearly the same time and I found alot of similarities in the characters and stories.
800 pages of politics set in the 17th century sounds kind of interesting to me.
but that may just be because i'm burned out on microsoft-weilding zaibatsu's building and using technology which a) yes, of course is feasible, but b) ain't here yet. god, do we need -another- 'advanced' computing metaphor story here people? i don't freakin' think so. booo-oring.
give me the dissentry of the 17th century over snowcrashin' in the 21st century, any day.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The Light of Other Days = Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter
I'd recommend Baxter too, especially the Manifold... series. And EARLY James Hogan (Voyage From Yesteryear, Inherit the Stars, Thrice Upon a Time)
----
WWJD...For a Klondike Bar?
I don't like Stephenson. I tried Cryptonomicon, and found midway through the beginning that even if I was going to eventually get into the story, I would never be able to get over the way he writes almost everything in superlatives.
I mean, the guy was describing the sound of a pipe organ for two pages. And this heightened sensitivity to emotional states caused his characters to quickly became charicatures of themselves. It's the literary equivalent of a nerdy kid who won't shut up about how smart he is. Look at this metaphor! Isn't it clever! Look how the sound of the pipe organ drives my savant character into mathematics! Look, the churl doesn't even understand homosexuality!
We get it, man! Calm down and write your book.
Maybe I'm too much of an English major, here, but symbolism only works if it's organic and adjectives shouldn't be applied with a brick. How about a little subtlty -- shit, even Gibson treats his flashy, negative future with a more gentle hand.
Of course, maybe I just didn't like it.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
The reality of the book publishing industry (which gets reflected in libraries) is that genre is as much about marketing as it is about content.
These books are considered science fiction by bookstores and libraries because they are published by a scince fiction imprint and marketted as science fiction books. The publisher probably chose to do that because they thought there would be more of a financial reward promoting the books to Stephenson's existing fan base (which looks at the science fiction racks) then seeking a new fan base (which may look elsewhere in the store/library).
Similarly, you tend to see the science fiction of established "literary" authors (such as Margaret Atwood) is not marketted as science fiction.
If you pay attention to these things you may notice that there are a number of books that are marketted to different genres, either simulaneously or sequentially. One of the more famous examples of this was the "adult" (trade paperback sized) version of _Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone_, with the photograph of the steam engine on the cover, which came out at the same time as the children's edition (but with a significantly higher price). A number of books and series have been marketted sometimes as "fantasy" and at other times as "children's" or "young adults".
Respectfully, David Tallan
Finished reading "Con-Fusion" yesterday; great read.
More in a similar vein:
"The Days of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley Robinson
"Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus" by Orson Scott Card (the last decent book he wrote)
Less speculative, but historical and rollicking good fun: "The Aubury-Maurtin Series" by Patrick O'Brian, starting with "Master and Commander"
Pure history: "The Invasion of Canada" by Pierre Burton
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
What is it about SF-heads and Slashdotters that makes the group so damned exclusionary? It seems like every time an author is discussed here, and the article or a poster refers to that person as an SF author, a huge argument ensues over whether that person or a given work is "really" SF. Please.
When I first got into SF many decades ago, the two main attractions for me were cool conceptualizations of space stuff and described universes where diversity of species was honored and worked towards. Not all the captains of ships looked like Bill Shatner, and most crews were integrated in some fashion. Societies had moved on from the foolishness which embroiled us at the time, and people were trying to solve great problems.
I suppose it was naive of me, but I thought that the SF reader community would reflect those kinds of values and perspectives. Maybe not so naive: the gang of nerds and ex-hippies that hung out around the Recycle Bookstore, and talked about SF for hours, was like that.
I hate sounding like Rodney King, but can't we all just get along? I'm not intending to trash the parent poster; the isn't-SF thread appears is many other responses. I'm just asking this community: Do we have to expend energy arguing about whether authors are fit to claim The One True SF Path? Can't we appreciate those who stretch the genre, who bring in other knowledge and disciplines, who invite us to think in different ways and consider new perspectives?
That's my wistful, wishful thinking...