Slashdot Mirror
Anathem
Max Tardiveau writes "I just finished reading Neal Stephenson's latest novel, Anathem. I was awaiting it with some anticipation because I absolutely loved Stephenson's best-known novels: Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, and Cryptonomicon. One of Stephenson's non-fiction pieces, called In the beginning was the command line, simply wowed me when I read it. The man can write. A few years ago, I got really excited when I heard that he was writing a whole cycle of novels (the Baroque cycle). But I read the first book of the cycle — Quicksilver — and I was somewhat disappointed, so I skipped the rest of the cycle. I realize that many people enjoyed these novels, but I was hoping that Stephenson would get back his old style and inspiration. So, when Anathem was announced, I was full of anticipation — was this going to be the one? Would he find his mark again?" Keep reading for Max's impressions of Anathem
Anathem
author
Neal Stephenson
pages
935
publisher
HarperCollins
rating
6
reviewer
Max Tardiveau
ISBN
9780061474095
summary
Action and philosophical exploration in an Earth-like future
The first impression of this book is its heft---at 935 pages in the hardback edition, you'll need strong arms, or a good support, just to read the thing. But otherwise, this is a sharply printed, well-bound book. The official retail price is $30, but you can find it for around $24, less if you buy it used.
Anathem is set on a fictional planet called Arbre, which is very similar to Earth, in a fairly distant future. Much has happened, as we discover during the course of the story. World wars, revolutions, climate change, etc... During all these tribulations, religious orders have provided a certain amount of continuity, and have pursued theoretical scientific research. They still live like monks and nuns, even though there are occasional glimpses of highly advanced technology (materials, genetics, etc...).
In a monastery, ruled by an ancient Discipline, our hero is a young monk who is inquisitive, smart but not brilliant, and brave but not foolhardy. We see most of the action through his eyes.
Not much happens in the first 100 pages or so, which can be a bit trying, but soon we learn that mysterious events are in progress, and the narrative picks up the pace after that. I can't say much more without spoilers.
As usual with Stephenson, there are many neat ideas, and a few mind-twisters. The writing is usually clear, the action can be stimulating, the characters can be engaging. And yet...
It's not that Anathem isn't interesting. It's just that it feels ... self-indulgent. It's a 935-page novel that should be 600 pages or less. Perhaps Stephenson's fame and success make it difficult for editors to stand up to him. That would be his loss (and ours). A good editing job would have turned a good novel into one that is worthy of him.
Why do I say that?
First, the story is replete with made-up words that add very little to the story, the atmosphere, the narration, or anything at all. They just stand in the way. I'm not opposed to a judicious use of this device, but here it feels gratuitous and pointless and, yes, at times irritating.
I know it's not supposed to be Earth, but at least half of this gobbledygook could have been skipped without any detrimental effect. I'm afraid I have to invoke Munroe's Law, which states: "The probability of a book being good is inversely proportional to the number of made-up words it contains". In fact, XKCD had a strip about this specifically aimed at Anathem.
There is a lot of dialog and action that adds little or nothing to the narrative. One feels, at times, like Stephenson is filling time. This is where a good editor should step in and tighten things up. One senses that the entire book was published as delivered by the author, with no critical paring, no condensing. I'm sure I'm wrong about that, but the feeling is there nonetheless.
We meet a very large cast of characters, many of whom seem unnecessary. Names appear and disappear, and the reader is left to ponder why they were introduced at all. Is there some ulterior motive? Will they have some sort of meaning later in the book? But alas, most don't, and we feel like we have invested time and emotion in vain.
There are also a lot of uncompleted story lines and plot holes. Perhaps the novel is simply too ambitious, and tries to broach too many topics. Time and time again, Stephenson introduces an interesting concept, or an intriguing subplot, only to drop it without any follow-up. This is most unsatisfying.
This is a surprise, because I am under the impression that Stephenson's audience is in large part made of people like me — somewhat geeky, interested in science, and therefore prone to paying close attention to details of the story. In this respect, this book simply fails. The reader is left with so many open questions, so many unfinished lines of inquiry, that the whole thing feels unfinished, even rushed. The ending is bland and appallingly predictable, worthy of a Bruce Willis action movie--harsh words, I know, but I am not using them lightly.
I was expecting more intellectual stimulation, a significantly faster pace, and more storytelling rigor from Stephenson, and I have to admit to being disappointed. The book is certainly not without redeeming qualities, I was just expecting quite a bit more.
I would not recommend this book as an introduction to Stephenson. If you're a real fan, you'll probably read it no matter what, but otherwise you can safely skip it. If you've never read anything by Stephenson, then you owe it to yourself to read the three novels I mentioned at the beginning of this article. They are truly excellent. Anathem, sadly, is not cut of the same cloth.
You can purchase Anathem from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Anathem is set on a fictional planet called Arbre, which is very similar to Earth, in a fairly distant future. Much has happened, as we discover during the course of the story. World wars, revolutions, climate change, etc... During all these tribulations, religious orders have provided a certain amount of continuity, and have pursued theoretical scientific research. They still live like monks and nuns, even though there are occasional glimpses of highly advanced technology (materials, genetics, etc...).
In a monastery, ruled by an ancient Discipline, our hero is a young monk who is inquisitive, smart but not brilliant, and brave but not foolhardy. We see most of the action through his eyes.
Not much happens in the first 100 pages or so, which can be a bit trying, but soon we learn that mysterious events are in progress, and the narrative picks up the pace after that. I can't say much more without spoilers.
As usual with Stephenson, there are many neat ideas, and a few mind-twisters. The writing is usually clear, the action can be stimulating, the characters can be engaging. And yet...
It's not that Anathem isn't interesting. It's just that it feels ... self-indulgent. It's a 935-page novel that should be 600 pages or less. Perhaps Stephenson's fame and success make it difficult for editors to stand up to him. That would be his loss (and ours). A good editing job would have turned a good novel into one that is worthy of him.
Why do I say that?
First, the story is replete with made-up words that add very little to the story, the atmosphere, the narration, or anything at all. They just stand in the way. I'm not opposed to a judicious use of this device, but here it feels gratuitous and pointless and, yes, at times irritating.
I know it's not supposed to be Earth, but at least half of this gobbledygook could have been skipped without any detrimental effect. I'm afraid I have to invoke Munroe's Law, which states: "The probability of a book being good is inversely proportional to the number of made-up words it contains". In fact, XKCD had a strip about this specifically aimed at Anathem.
There is a lot of dialog and action that adds little or nothing to the narrative. One feels, at times, like Stephenson is filling time. This is where a good editor should step in and tighten things up. One senses that the entire book was published as delivered by the author, with no critical paring, no condensing. I'm sure I'm wrong about that, but the feeling is there nonetheless.
We meet a very large cast of characters, many of whom seem unnecessary. Names appear and disappear, and the reader is left to ponder why they were introduced at all. Is there some ulterior motive? Will they have some sort of meaning later in the book? But alas, most don't, and we feel like we have invested time and emotion in vain.
There are also a lot of uncompleted story lines and plot holes. Perhaps the novel is simply too ambitious, and tries to broach too many topics. Time and time again, Stephenson introduces an interesting concept, or an intriguing subplot, only to drop it without any follow-up. This is most unsatisfying.
This is a surprise, because I am under the impression that Stephenson's audience is in large part made of people like me — somewhat geeky, interested in science, and therefore prone to paying close attention to details of the story. In this respect, this book simply fails. The reader is left with so many open questions, so many unfinished lines of inquiry, that the whole thing feels unfinished, even rushed. The ending is bland and appallingly predictable, worthy of a Bruce Willis action movie--harsh words, I know, but I am not using them lightly.
I was expecting more intellectual stimulation, a significantly faster pace, and more storytelling rigor from Stephenson, and I have to admit to being disappointed. The book is certainly not without redeeming qualities, I was just expecting quite a bit more.
I would not recommend this book as an introduction to Stephenson. If you're a real fan, you'll probably read it no matter what, but otherwise you can safely skip it. If you've never read anything by Stephenson, then you owe it to yourself to read the three novels I mentioned at the beginning of this article. They are truly excellent. Anathem, sadly, is not cut of the same cloth.
You can purchase Anathem from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
... I agree with Max's review. I'm almost halfway through Anathem and it's simply not compelling at this point. The made-up words that littered the first part of the story were amazingly painful to slog through, at least in the beginning. I either don't notice them so much now or their usage is toned down a little. They're still irritating, though.
While I love Stephenson's earlier works, his later works are disappointing to me. If you could somehow plot a trend of his writing style, beginning with something like Snow Crash and continuing until the present, you'd find Anathem right on that trend line. If you've been reading his stuff all along, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Anathem is like the Baroque cycle, but more so.
Anathem is the classic slow starter. I almost gave up at first, but by the halfway mark it was on my all-time short list. Its great strength is the theme of intellectual elitism. Not the modern "liberal condescension" interpretation of that term, but rather the deeper idea that those willing to do what it takes to perceive reality are both rare and precious. If the book has a flaw, it is in promulgating the idea that intellectual elites are to be found in academic cloisters.
Unlike every other Stephenson novel - this one has a real conclusion!
While I'm a big lover of Stephenson's work, I've felt like in his other novels the end is just hacked off without literary justification. This time, Stephenson provides us with a satisfying conclusion. It sort of blew my mind.
As to the rest of the novel, I enjoyed it overall. But I felt like Stephenson did fall prey to the trap of letting his characters discusses theoretics overmuch at the expense of some narrative.
Also, I'm not sure that forcing readers to learn so much invented vocabulary for the sake of his imaginary world was entirely worth it. Sure, there might not be a word in the English language that perfectly encapsulates the idea he was trying to communicate, but most writers are forced to overcome this obstacle every day, and do so without making up new words. It added a layer of complication to Anathem that was unnecessarily daunting.
So, read the book if you're already into Stephenson, you'll probably love it. But - as the review said - you'd be better off falling in love with the man's writing somewhere else.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
I, too, was hoping for something out of Stephenson more like his older books. I loved Snow Crash, and Diamond Age. I felt Cryptonomicon to be somewhat self-indulgent of the the author in the sense mentioned by the reviewer.
Yes, some of Stephenson's books were, IMHO, outstanding. Snow Crash was great. I even thought his first novel, "The Big U", was hilarious (apparently unlike many others... it did not sell well or get good reviews).
After reading this, I doubt very much that I will bother reading Anathem.
But after Cryptonomicon, I was reluctant to dive into the Baroque Cycle books. Too much prose, for too little effect. Stephenson would do well to return to the more terse writing of his earlier years.
or an eBook reader. I picked up the Sony PRS-505 last month and read several books using it. Love it. I can carry a metric ton of books in one hand. Anathem may be next.
His early books were pretty good, but I some time while he was writing Cryptonomicon he became a "fan" of his subject matter instead of a student of it. Heinlein had the same problem... after Stranger in a Strange Land his books turned into well-written fan fiction.
To me its clearly Stephenson's best book and the only one he has written that hasn't fallen apart towards the end. His prose is so much more mature in this. Its such a pleasure to read a book which expects so much of its readers. His humour in the book plays across an enormous range of questions and schisms in philosophy, language an physics and I found myself giggling whilst amazed at his audacity in expecting so much from his audience. Yes it is self-indulgent but only so much as it indulges his target audience. If you found it boring and you didn't find it extremely funny throughout then I guess he was expecting a little too much of you or you were under-estimating him. Seriously, this book puts the rest of his work to shame. Please try re-reading it. Everything else he has written is practice in order to get it right for Anathem.
Nick
The biggest issue, though, is this complaint that is levied about the language and the made-up words. If you have completed the book, please finish it before slamming the words themselves. You cannot understand the reason that he uses these words until you understand the larger message of the book. I felt for a long time that it added little, and while I got used to the words I wished that they weren't there. Then I read the last 20% of the book, and I got it. It made sense. You could still disagree with the approach, but at least you would be able to do so intelligently. The previous poster who wrote that he was halfway through the book and annoyed at the made-up words should finish the book first. If he is still annoyed, then fine. I wasn't at that point.
It isn't a perfect book. Many people will find many faults. Personally, I felt that the last hundred pages felt rushed. I wanted more out of them. And I felt that the book changed from an intellectual discourse into a plot-driven made-for-the-big-screen story. But I still enjoyed it.
And for the award for biggest geek family move of the year, I actually read the entire book out loud to my wife. She wanted to share the book with me, and she loved it more than I did. Go figure.
It's a 935-page novel that should be 600 pages or less.
You do know who wrote the book, right? He can't type out the 10 commandments without 250 pages, an epilogue, and a vague feeling that it just wasn't quite long enough since the ending was unsatisfying.
Calling his writing verbose is like saying Death Valley is tepid.
Don't read Tolkien's less common stuff. By less common, I mean, haven't had a movie made out of it yet.
There's a reason that his popular stuff is popular, and his obscure stuff is obscure.
Tolkien found a good balance between the background paraphernalia that gave his world depth and narrative in The Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit. Much of his less popular stuff doesn't find that balance, which makes it fine for us more obsessive nerd types, and not much fun for the average reader.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
As far as I'm concerned, the reviewer's complaints really only apply to the first third of the book. Yeah, he made up a bunch of words, which was a bit off putting. Also, there was a very prolonged rising action where several hundred pages essentially just introduced the world; the actual plot proper didn't start until maybe page 200 or 300.
And that's where all my complaints stopped. I found the actual plot thoroughly compelling. I found the world very interesting and all of the characters deep and quirky. Towards the end of the book I couldn't put it down. Once I got through all the introductory material, I thought this was one of the most entertaining books I've read in a good while, and I read a lot.
I feel like the XKCD comic has somewhat unfairly focused the discussion on the book's invented words. While I find it frustrating in some fantasy novels, half of the charm of Anathem for me was learning the rules of this new society- which is what happens in the first hundred pages.
What frustrated me was that, having set up this immersive, complicated world, focused on scholars and their ideas, Stephenson ended up telling a fairly conventional (if exciting) story for the remainder of the book, essentially forgetting about many of the internal conflicts of the monks about halfway through, rather than letting that drive the action. It's as if he doesn't know whether to make this book look more like Eco's The Name of the Rose or a retread of Snow Crash.
Nonetheless, I enjoyed Anathem immensely, and I couldn't finish the Quicksilver series (dropped out halfway through System of the World). I feel like this book was more of a return to Stephenson's writing in the Diamond Age / Cryptonomicon era. It's not his best, but I'd recommend it over Quicksilver.
I read this book on the plane on the way into theatre.
This is Neal's best book yet. His work is high concept, intellectually challenging stuff that winds up educating as much as it entertains, and past Stephanson works have wobbled back and forth between action and education. This one gets it exactly right. It starts slow, but it has to, as there are a lot of new concepts to introduce and a whole different world to paint in before we can get going with the main story. As we learn and gain confidence with the new vocabulary (and there is a lot of it, although it is cleverly constructed to provide semantic clues as to what it means in "our world") he builds and builds on what he has already contructed, and before you know it, we are fully immersed in the culture of Arbre - at which points the story takes off and you can't put the damn book down.
And unlike some of his other work (Diamond Age?) this book ends strong.
I love how this book isn't written to the lowest common denominator. I love that it is willing to tackle things like philosophy, the nature of conciousness, the ramifications of the "many worlds" theory of the cosmos, thinking "long view" with people who only live a short time, and many other subjects, while still wrapping the whole thing up in an entertaining yarn.
After I finished, I felt smarter. How many other authors can pull that off?
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Self-indulgence has always been Neal Stephenson's curse. Cryptonomicon could've been half the length. The Diamond Age got lost in several places.
I think his best work (from an entertainment perspective) is Zodiac. It presents the tightest narrative, without all the unfocused wandering that he often falls into.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
It depends on the goal of making up the words/names. Tolkien created an entire world with actual languages, not just made up ones. He tends to use the made up word when he's presenting something as coming from that culture, the same way that we would pronounce something with a quasi-french pronunciation if that's where we got the word; in this way he distinguishes the item and gives it more background. He was also presenting it as a historical piece, as middle earth being the same earth that we're on right now, only a long time ago. For those reasons, it's less grating to have him make up words. However, that tendency still puts people off of his books and it's hard to fault them for it.
For other books, where they make up new names for periods of time, like "cycle" instead of "day" or make up a new word that replaces "hour", there's no reason to do so. If an author makes up a word, let's say "klek", and then defines it as "60 minutes", they've lost a lot of credibility with me and made it so that I'll almost certainly never recommend that book to anyone else again.
I just have to thrown out a few comments to the people that quit the Baroque Cycle part way through. Yeah, this series is a beast to read (I have 100 pages left, been reading since January) but it's a fantastic story with a scope that I've never seen anywhere before. Book 1 (Quicksilver) doesn't seem to do too much on it's own, but most of what happens in that book comes back to haunt you (and the characters) in book 3 (System of the World). I'm more than impressed with Stephenson's ability to see a story this big. The books occasionally do get a little too philosophical for my taste, but those scenes are relatively easy to gloss over. (Be careful doing that though, Stephenson is a master at making small details very important later.) Over-all, I thought Book 1 was decent, Book 2 was tons of fun, and Book 3 makes it all worthwhile. Maybe the ending sucks (don't know yet) but the trip has been awesome.
That said (and in an attempt to get back on-topic), I really haven't decided whether I'll attack Anathem yet. If there's anyone out there that shares my opinion of The Baroque Cycle, I'd love to hear your opinion on it.
Neal Stephenson is a writer who simply adores a shaggy dog story.
I think he writes for the love of being clever; cleverness for its own sake, whether or not it leads to anything. Contrast this to other, even more wildly inventive authors such as Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett, where absurdity seems to have more of a purpose, which is to make the characters struggles more sympathetic. Everyone can put himself in Arthur Dent's place, because while we might be a little self-absorbed, we're surrounded by even more aggressively self-absorbed people. In the case of Terry Pratchett, we have more pure fantasy; we can imagine ourselves to be stronger and cleverer when faced with the absurdity and corruption of everyday life than we are.
Stephenson's characters seem to me a lot less sympathetic -- not that the have to be. He seems a lot less interested in something you might call "the human condition"; more interested in ideas, places, and things than people perhaps. Cryptonomicon is perhaps the most appealing of his novels that I have read, especially the Goto Dengo character. His survival story is immediately understandable and compelling.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I must read Anathem now...
Personally, I think that Snow Crash, while a good read is not his best (but will make a great movie). Zodiac sucked. I really liked The Diamond Age and Cryptonomicon.
I find the Baroque Cycle (unlike so many others) utterly fascinating, it's like reverse Science Fiction. It's the story of how humans dealt with and brought about the birth of modern science and the culture and the ways of thinking that went along with it.
I thought the book was very good. I thought the made-up words were absolutely essential to the basic idea of the book, that there is a type of "universal knowledge" that any intelligent culture would have to understand to even call itself intelligent. This meta-knowledge took the specific forms described on Arbre and is explained to us in the terms used by the avout. I enjoyed the philosophical discussions very much, although I agreed the ending was rather unsatisfying.
Regular Meta Moderators are not more likely to get mod points.
A review already? Nah, not possible. The book only was only published in September. That's nowhere near long enough to read A Neal Stephenson.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
I read Snow Crash at least three or four times and I think it is a great book. The last book of his that I read was the Cryptonomicon. It was good and I enjoyed the parallel stories that took place in different time periods and the way that he tied them all together in the end. However as I was slogging through the 1000+ pages of the book I came to realize that Stephanson writes the equivalent of verbal ejaculate. He makes things needlessly complex. He uses so many metaphors on top of metaphors laced with adjectives contrasted by similes... He seems to be the literary equivalent of the Rube Goldberg machine, using so many devices for the simple sake of using them, as if he's challenging himself to see how unnecessarily verbose he can be. The guy simply has too much going on in his head. Reading a Stephanson book is like being plugged into the mind of a schizophrenic idiot savant.
Not much happens in the first 100 pages or so
Yeah, that happens a lot in his books. Also for other blocks of 100 pages scattered throughout.
Why does it stop 120 pages in? Because the next page is where the plot starts. Everything up to then is just world building.
something happens.
Stephensen has been stepping incrementally closer to being a literature author with each book he's written. Snow crash is fluff, Cryptonomicon is pretty deep, and the Baroque Cycle is a master work (in the original sense). Anathem is his first post master work book.
Many posters have made the claim: "It would be better if you removed X", for various values of X. What is instructive is that not everyone agrees on X. Stephensen had a lot to say in this book, on many topics.
I'll address a few things here, but this list isn't exhaustive:
* Unresolved plot elements are not bad. Only in very bad fiction does absolutely everything happen in service of the ultimate confrontation. Some things just happen, and we learn about the characters in how they deal with them.
* Characters exist for themselves, not the plot. If every character was there 'for something', this would be a (bad) video game, but it isn't, its a book.
* The ultimate conclusion of the book is that intellectuals have a duty to the world to remain engaged. The first half (roughly) of the book exists to convince you that being segregated would be lovely, while the second half drives towards the negative consequences of that approach. The character development and the plot both work to develop this theme over time.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
The Baroque Cycle is just an utterly different (huge) work to anything like Snowcrash or Diamond Age. It needs an editor who isn't scared of Stephenson in places but it is one of the most fantastic feats of human imagination I have ever read. If you can only deal with sci-fi then clearly a novel about Baroque England with Isaac Newton, a half-dicked pirate king and a fabulous ex-Hareem girl turned Duchess with diverse characters and fantastical imaginings isn't going to be your thing. But I can hardly remember a book that left me more open-mouthed with the sheer imagination and achievement of the author. The B.C. is a book that will never leave me.
I generally agree with your statement regarding making up words. Typically, it is a sign of sloppy cliche thinking and someone trying to dress it up in semantics.
But I think you have to recognize that depicting a believable future sub-culture in a novel that you want to stand the test of time - that's a special case. You need to use language that won't become dated over time - eliminating the possibility of using current jargon. You also cannot use standard English because it misses conveying how differences of this future sub-culture. So, you have to make something up - particularly because standard concepts don't tend to cover what authors are trying to convey in this context.
Clockwork Orange is an excellent example of the technique. Even novels like Stranger in a Strange Land do it with some degree of success - and grok is a good addition to the language. On the other hand, using a cliched abortion of a word like Islamocfascist, deserves the limited lifespan it gets. It's a fine line, and we won't know whether authors that attempt it like Neal - whether they walked it successfully for a decade or two.
... of NOT reading Stephenson's earlier books. This enabled me to enjoy greatly The Baroque Cycle, which I've read twice. FWIW, I don't think that Anathem is as good as The Baroque Cycle, but I may change my mind on a second reading.
At any rate, I'm glad I passed on Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, and Cryptonomicon. If I'd read them, I'd probably be another one of those purists who can't stand it when the object of their fanboi enthusiasms has the audacity to actually change and grow and not continue to be what they were.
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
Fermat called, with the help of a medium. He wants his cryptic margin annotations back.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Fraa Erasmas: "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
That line, and everything after that point, made that book worth reading. It was frankly uninteresting until that it was suddenly made clear that the next 500 pages would involve defeating the opponent using applied and weaponised platonic epistemology.
I agree with the review to some extent, but having read the book three times at this point, I put this up with Snow Crash as an example of what Stephenson can do. Now can someone make a mini-series or movie out of his books already!
Yes, I wrote the TVTropes.org entry of Anathem and I stole some of it.
You think that's a building. Now this is a building.
I agree that it's a hell of a good book, but to be honest, it's extremely similar to Gene Wolfe's Litany of the Long Sun. I'm not sure whether Stephenson had read Wolfe's book and it stuck in his unconscious for a while before he wrote this one, or whether it's just zeitgeist, but the similarities are too many to not note:
In Gene Wolfe's Litany of the Long Sun, Patera Silk, a young "cleric" from a science-based "religion" that has outlasted governments for generations, has to go forth into the world outside, and becomes an important chess piece on a global scale.
In Stephenson's Anathem, Fraa Erasmus, a young "cleric" from a science-based "religion" that has outlasted governments for generations, has to go forth into the world outside, and become an important chess piece on a global scale.
Fraa = Patera ... and so on.
Suur = Matera
Avout = Augur
Arbre = Whorl
Math = Manteion
I do not think it's plagiarism, but the similarities are so great that I'm fairly certain that anyone who has read Wolfe's book can't help but think that this is a very close relative.
And while Stephenson might be more popular these days, I still think Wolfe is the better writer. Perhaps they're not as engaging, but I find that his books stands up to re-reading more than Stephenson's novels.
Anyhow, I recommend that people read both. They're very similar, yet different. Where Stephenson has more of a technical point of view, Wolfe appears to me to have a deeper psychological insight, and characters with more grit to them. Again, read both.
Alternately authors get big enough that they don't have to bend to editors worried about commercial success.
I for one am glad Anathem exists as it is. I don't feel that the author is self-indulgent. I feel that he's indulging me.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I have to disagree, my droog. Proctolexicogenesis is doubleplusungood. Any muggle author or holodeck scenarist worth his quatloos should be able to make do with the words that exist in plain frakking English.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
The reviewer is an intellectual liteweight, in other words a clueless fuck-wit without the ability to create, but literate enough (barely) to string words together into a critique.
Ah, Critics......
This is perhaps one of the finest pieces of speculative fiction I have read in the past 40 years. It ranks with Herbert's Dune, and shares many qualities with that masterwork. I will be surprised if it is not the Hugo winner.
---SPOILER ALERT---
The Reviewer gets it wrong from the beginning.... This is not about "religious orders", in fact a great deal of time is spent dealing with the difficulty (impossibility?) of establishing the existence of a god. Further, it's not set on a world "very similar to Earth, in a fairly distant future", but on a world in a parallel cosmos, probably not more than 100 years in our future, if that.
The "made-up words" factor that he takes to task is critical to the whole book. To a reader with a classical education, most, if not all, of the "made-up words" have roots that are familiar. When this fails, a trip to the provided references is sufficient. The fact that these words are just on the edge of understanding is subtle evidence of the "hylean flow".
Yes, it is "wordy". Welcome to Stevenson. If you're here, you're expected to bring enough wit and dedication to understand.
I wonder if the fuck-wit even finished the book. It's certain he did not understand it.
Red