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...""

18 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Neal Stephenson... by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Neal Stephenson rocks. Seriously. If you haven't already, read Snow Crash. You'll be glad you did.

    Now that the fawning and praise and adoration is out of the way... He did an interesting essay a while back called In the Beginning was the Command Line. It's a good read.

    --
    "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

    - Seneca
    1. Re:Neal Stephenson... by flaez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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???)

    2. Re:Neal Stephenson... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
    3. Re:Neal Stephenson... by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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...
  3. Writing != Programming by WwWonka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Writing != Programming by ThePretender · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it is similar to the "music is math" argument. At the base level, yes it is. But there is just something extra (they "creative juices" and "unique style" you mention) that transcends music's mathematical base. Such is the case with writing. People may churn out derivative books/essays/etc but there are still authors out there that add their unique touch to their work.

    2. Re:Writing != Programming by sbma44 · · Score: 5, Funny
      You're absolutely right. A program can be beautiful, and its creators can take pride in it. This is the same pride a bricklayer might take in a well-built wall. That doesn't mean it's a creative endeavor.

      I think it's hilarious that the article includes an edited version of Stephenson's comments comparing programming the writing. He was led into that question by the interviewer and he heavily qualified his answer, to the point where it basically boiled down to "both involve typing". Yet we Slashdotters are ready to jump all over it -- "OMG Neal and I are exactly the same we'll be best friends 4EVER!!!"

      Stephenson's awesome: an entertaining writer and a geek to boot. Let's not forget which one comes first.

  4. So... by xconslash · · Score: 4, Funny

    One character at a time. Does that mean writing and programming are both O(n)?

    --


    .sig error: carrier signal lost.
  5. Works in Progress by diogenesx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Oh, I know... by Allen+Zadr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If Grisham wrote profound stories on the morality of laws and what they could mean if prosecuted, then lawyers probably would put more stock in his stories.

    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.
  7. Snowcrash vs Cryptomicon : WWF final by ishmaelflood · · Score: 4, Funny

    a) C is twice as heavy at least, so in a free for all wrestling match it will win

    b) C is funnier than S

    c) S has the best shaggy dog story (the fight in the mall)

    d) C has the best sidebars. The breakfast cereal one, in particular.

    e) S is a bit, well, dull. Software hackers (or pizza delivery people) might be very interesting to themselves, but entrepeneurs are more exciting to read about for the rest of us.

    I make that 4:1 in favour of the current heavyweight, Mr Cryptonomicon.

    Fix! fix!

  8. Good Baroque Cycle Resource by palutke · · Score: 4, Informative

    Metaweb - A wiki about the Cryptonomicon/Quicksilver Universe, with contributions fro Mr. Stephenson

    --
    'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
  9. Mind-controling Sumerian... by mengel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Actually, I thought it was a really cool concept -- that there could be a verbal, low-level, "machine language" for people; and that someone in history figured out how to write a security module in it so people couldn't just arbitrarily be ordered around anymore.

    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'
  10. Re:Why is he still considered Science Fiction? by dltallan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  11. Re:I'll only read the article by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
    > if someone assures me that is has a @$^@$%&$ ending!

    Of course it has an ending. You set up this recursive loop, see, and you have it going around and around. And you have this other thread running in the background. And it spawns two child processes. And then you do a malloc(), and you say "Holy Fark! Only three pages free!". So you exit(0) and kill -9 everything.

    Halting problem, my ass. All Stephenson novels halt. You even get advanced warning when you realize that you can feel your right forefinger and your right thumb through the last couple of pages! What more could you ask for?

    (Disclaimer: I love Stephenson's novels. I despise the abrupt endings, though. I hope for the sake of Mrs. Stephenson that he doesn't fuck like he writes. If he does fuck like he writes, would she please enclue him? It might improve his writing!)

  12. Disagree by arevos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.