Re:In defense of the Baroque Cycle and Anathem
on
Anathem
·
· Score: 1
Ultimately, I think that the criticisms of Stephenson (or indeed any author) boil down to one unique aspect of why we read: what entertains us. For some people, they just want to take their mind off the hook and let the story make its points in an entertaining yet open way. If that is the type of story you enjoy, Stephenson is not for you. For others, however, the relaxation comes in the being challenged and forced to reconcile idiosyncracies and/or counterfactual/counterintuitive leaps of faith/logic that the author uses to move the story along.
You were not alone in enjoying the Baroque Cycle, I enjoyed it immensely as well. What made that series and Anathem work (as well as Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon) was Stephenson's commitment to thoroughly understanding the background material and presenting what one might consider droll subject matter in an entertaining and creative way.(e.g. 17th Century european politics of science, ancient Sumerian mythology, the evolution of cryptography, and/or philosophy of knowledge itself.) For example, depsite the Baroque Cycle being a work of historical fiction, I learned a huge amount about 17th century Europe that I otherwise wouldn't have known (not being a history buff). I for one like learning something while being entertained (the Discovery Channel has made a business of it).
Finally, the criticism regarding making up words is ridiculous when you put it in this context - who can say that they know all of the terms used to describe any subject. For those unfamiliar with a given subject matter, for example logic, if you call a "tautology" a "selftruth" what does it matter as long as it is internally consistent? Using Anathem as the example, the use of similar words (or often times second/third meanings of words) is a useful device to remind the reader that it is not English (it's Fluccish), it is not a political system that was invented on Earth, it is not a future Earth, etc. That the words have more commonly used English analogs does not mean that the author should use them, especially if it defeats the purpose of keeping the reader cemented in the "other" world. A "Fraa" is certainly not a "friar" in the sense of how we define a friar in English - the use of Fraa reminds us that the character's world is not our own.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately, I think that the criticisms of Stephenson (or indeed any author) boil down to one unique aspect of why we read: what entertains us. For some people, they just want to take their mind off the hook and let the story make its points in an entertaining yet open way. If that is the type of story you enjoy, Stephenson is not for you. For others, however, the relaxation comes in the being challenged and forced to reconcile idiosyncracies and/or counterfactual/counterintuitive leaps of faith/logic that the author uses to move the story along.
You were not alone in enjoying the Baroque Cycle, I enjoyed it immensely as well. What made that series and Anathem work (as well as Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon) was Stephenson's commitment to thoroughly understanding the background material and presenting what one might consider droll subject matter in an entertaining and creative way.(e.g. 17th Century european politics of science, ancient Sumerian mythology, the evolution of cryptography, and/or philosophy of knowledge itself.) For example, depsite the Baroque Cycle being a work of historical fiction, I learned a huge amount about 17th century Europe that I otherwise wouldn't have known (not being a history buff). I for one like learning something while being entertained (the Discovery Channel has made a business of it).
Finally, the criticism regarding making up words is ridiculous when you put it in this context - who can say that they know all of the terms used to describe any subject. For those unfamiliar with a given subject matter, for example logic, if you call a "tautology" a "selftruth" what does it matter as long as it is internally consistent? Using Anathem as the example, the use of similar words (or often times second/third meanings of words) is a useful device to remind the reader that it is not English (it's Fluccish), it is not a political system that was invented on Earth, it is not a future Earth, etc. That the words have more commonly used English analogs does not mean that the author should use them, especially if it defeats the purpose of keeping the reader cemented in the "other" world. A "Fraa" is certainly not a "friar" in the sense of how we define a friar in English - the use of Fraa reminds us that the character's world is not our own.
... and poke them with the soft lawsuits (with all the vagueness up one end)!