|
 |
October 29, 2003 QUICKSILVER....I'm reading Quicksilver right now. I'm only a few hundred pages into it, but as a big Neal Stephenson fan I'm sorry to say that it's rapidly becoming — to coin a phrase — a long, hard slog. Someone somewhere described it as less a novel than a "core dump," and that's about right. Stephenson obviously did a ton of historical research for the book, and he seems bound and determined to use every last bit of it — which still wouldn't be that bad if it weren't for the fact that at least half of it is completely pointless and advances neither the plot, the characters, the theme, nor anything else. In fact, a discouraging percentage of it just gets in the way. Stephenson is such a good writer that the book is still pretty readable in patches, but as the pages go by and it gets harder and harder to discern any purpose or ultimate goal to the writing, my concentration is flagging. And here's what might be the worst part: the first third of the book takes place mostly in Britain in the late 17th century and is a fictional reconstruction of Isaac Newton, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, the Royal Society, and the invention of calculus. There is no other period of history or cast of characters that entrances me more, but even at that I'm fading. If this period doesn't have such a special pull for you, the book is likely to be even less rewarding than it is for me. There is this nice passage, though:
That explains what I find so entrancing: the uniquely powerful mind of Isaac Newton and what he did with it. I just wish Stephenson captured more of it. Posted by Kevin Drum at October 29, 2003 09:17 PM | TrackBackComments
I'm mostly done with it. (I had some thoughts here. The style doesn't bother me, as I think it fits the time. Then again, I find it pretty amusing to read a book about the Baroque Age written in a Baroque style... I enjoy the setting, and the florid style, as it seems to fit both the time, the people, and the plot. Mostly, however, I think the book is worth reading for what it conveys about science. Science, today, is hard to approach. There's a steep knowledge curve to even become familiar with a field, and an even steeper curve if you want to understand the direction it's heading in. So laymen don't see the myraid failures, don't see the work. They just see shiny new theories and products coming out of labs. But Quicksilver, on the other hand, makes that reality approachable. The failures are just as obvious as the successes, and seeing them side by side really drives home the point that science is more about failure than success. For every new truth, we tend to find a couple dozen falsehoods. And nothing drives that home as much as watching some scientists discover some fundamental truth, something central to our world today...and celebrate that understanding by drinking a giant glass of mercury. At times, I found the book almost painful to read. Seeing ignorance and enlightnment together like that...was hard. Watching these people search for understanding, for knowledge, for enlightment...and see them achieve bits and pieces of it was joyous. Seeing them then go on to accept bad knowledge, to make false assumptions...to see them, in effect, spike their own work... Posted by: Morat at October 29, 2003 09:35 PM | PERMALINK I'm at page 69, and even though I'm admiring a lot of his writing, the whole experience is like slogging through treacle. I'm a huge Stephenson fan, but when you compare the light, speedy prose of Zodiac to Quicksilver, you wouldn't know it was the same guy. Cryptonomicon was almost as dense, but I had enough familiarity with the settings that I rarely felt lost. I have to read this huge, heavy book very closely to get what I need out of it, and I'm not used to that any more. Maybe all ths blog-following has shredded my attention span. Posted by: Mary at October 29, 2003 09:37 PM | PERMALINKKev (chuckle): Best stay in the shallow end, sport: Comic books, Readers Digest, TV Guide- that sort of thing. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You poor, ignorant boob. (Note to myself- be sure to delete the "ignorant boob" crack before sending). Posted by: Sovereign Eye at October 29, 2003 09:38 PM | PERMALINKMorat: I don't mind the baroque style. In fact, I sort of enjoy it. But the story isn't going anywhere and too much of the detail is pointless. I agree with you about the theme, and normally I'd eat this stuff up. I just don't think Stephenson is getting it across well enough. But I'll wait until I'm done to make a final judgment. (And yes: they drank mercury? Holy hell.) Posted by: Kevin Drum at October 29, 2003 09:47 PM | PERMALINK[Caveat: Stephenson-bashing comment] Stephenson has a huge following in the blogosphere and a lot of my favorite bloggers have plugged him. So last Thanksgiving I bought and read Snow Crash because I had seen it referenced even by non-bloggers. I gotta say that before I had even flipped over the first page I was rolling my eyes and thinking it was going to be juvenile and simplistic. Even so, I read the whole thing. It was god-awful. It left me with a sense of wonderment, wonderment at how so many smart people can think so highly of him. I've read X-Men comics in which the characters had more depth and profundity. So tell me. Did I pick the one book that is not indicative of Stephenson's talent? Are is other books much, much, much better and therefore worth reading? I want my weekend back. P.S. Yeah, they drank mercury. My 8th grade science teacher told me about that. Posted by: Mitch Schindler at October 29, 2003 09:48 PM | PERMALINKThe book picks up considerably in its second third, when Stephenson starts bucklingn his swash and all. The most pleasantly surprising thing to me about the book was the economics. It never occurred to me that at the same time science was being reinvented, capitalism was being created out of whole cloth. The characters' various responses to that were quite gripping. Posted by: Craig Moe at October 29, 2003 09:49 PM | PERMALINKCrap. I'm sorry to hear this; it matches up with the other reviews I've heard but it's still a disppointment, especially given his previosu works. Oh well, thanks for the review. Please keep us posted. Posted by: Kevin Brennan at October 29, 2003 09:51 PM | PERMALINKIt should be getting a lot better soon. Still a disappointment overall, but I found it pretty enjoyable from about where you're at all the way to the end. Also its really 3 books, so fear not its not all Royal Society all the way through. Also if you're the type willing to skip bits, all the pirate ship stuff is pretty much irrelevant to this volume, and in my eyes the least pleasure to read. Posted by: Ae at October 29, 2003 09:53 PM | PERMALINKAs for Snow Crash, well, the main character is named Hiro Protagonist; it's not going to be a book with much depth and profundity. Cryptonomicon and Quicksilver are in my opinion much better, but the author's voice is still the same. If you didn't like Snow Crash I can't really recommend his other stuff. Check out the Cryptonomicon website and read the excerpt there. If it's sufficiently entertaining, and you enjoy math, codes, and WWII action, give it a try. Posted by: Craig Moe at October 29, 2003 09:55 PM | PERMALINKA-hah! I knew it. I finally gave up on Cryptonomican. As much as I enjoyed the writing, I would read it for a half an hour and find myself looking at the clock...or at dust motes...or for an episode of The King of Queens. Yeah. Yeah. You're a smart guy, but even smart guys need editors (yeah, I'm talking to you too, David Foster Wallace). I know, I'm a philistine...So sue me. ...or have Luskin's attorney sue me. Posted by: tbogg at October 29, 2003 10:00 PM | PERMALINKSee, I viewed Snow Crash (well, the first thirty pages. Delivering Pizza for the mob? Yes!) as well-written...if dated. Always a problem with "near-future" sci-fi. Few of them age well. I tend to treat the older ones (especially Golden Age stuff) as "space fantasy". I just cheerfully assume, for instance, that the Foundation Trilogy takes place in an alternate universe. Moving back to the subject: I think that Quicksilver is going to be difficult to judge on it's own. He really wrote three large books, with three (mostly) seperate stories. But rather than print them one after the other, but taking place sequentially, he shoves the first third of each in Quicksilver. Which means, basically, that just as stuff gets interesting...he's off to another set of characters and that story, mostly, is done for this book. I enjoyed the style (especially the stylistic changes between voices, using things like letter or minutes of meetings to tell the story at times), but it really isn't for everyone. (IMHO, a lot of Harry Turtledove's alternate history stuff is the same way. I wonder if it's a peril of the genre?) However, if you really want to immerse yourself -- to the eyeballs -- in the Enlightment, you should plow through it. But, if you're a guy, you might want to skip over "How to cure the pox, the 17th Century way". And yes, at least once, you get to see someone down a heaping glass O'Quicksilver. Which was, in my mind, one of the more disturbing scenes (worse than certain vivisections, but not as bad as part with the plague...and the fleas). Posted by: Morat at October 29, 2003 10:01 PM | PERMALINKOne last thought: Stephenson tends to flag in the last third of the book. At least, he did in Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon. Hope he doesn't here. Posted by: Morat at October 29, 2003 10:03 PM | PERMALINKCraig, almost all the economics come from Fernand Braudel's 3 volumes of _Civilization & Capitalism 15th-18th Century_. Which is chock full of fascinating stuff, but not exactly a pleasurable read. It might seem like Stephenson wants to drop every detail he's learned, but Braudel *actually does* report every detail he learned. 3,000 pages. A few hundred of those pages are absolutely brilliant too. Others are good stories, but a lot will pretty much knock you asleep for a few days... Still if the economic aspects of Quicksilver grab you (they were by far my favorite bits) then Braudel is the next step. Quick tip on picking a volume, the first is *local*, the final *global* with the middle covering just Europe. If you like broad theory go for the last volume, while details of everyday life is in the first. Posted by: Abe at October 29, 2003 10:06 PM | PERMALINKStephenson grows increasingly languid w/ every book. And i'm not saying that's a bad thing. There are writers who rush from plot point to plot point and spin a good yarn and there are those who write as if the journey were as important as the destination. As much as I enjoy the former, its the work of the latter that makes the more lasting impression on me. I read a lot. That is neither a boast nor confession. I have difficulty articulating the depth to which Cryptonomican affected me. Milan Kundera said that he attempts to use a style he describes as literary polophony to tell stories. I've thought for a while now that Stephenson does something similiar. I've read and re-read Crypto several times, mostly out of impatience for Quicksilver, and as such I thought that I might be setting myself up for a colossal letdown when Quicksilver was finally published, but that has not been the case. I can only say this. Stop being so impatient. There are three thousand pages in this story and you've only made it to the first 100. It may seem at the moment that you are being fed information with little relevance but have faith, this is a big story with a lot to tell. Slow down and enjoy the journey, take in the sights... Posted by: Polonius19 at October 29, 2003 10:13 PM | PERMALINKFor what it's worth, I though Snow Crash was good (I loved the opening scene) but not great; Diamond Age was terrific; and Cryptonomicon more than terrific. However, plot is not Stephenson's strong point, and things definitely tend to fall completely to hell in the last third or so of his books. I found that especially true of Diamond Age. Posted by: Kevin Drum at October 29, 2003 10:17 PM | PERMALINKOn where start on Stephenson I'd say either _Diamond Age_ or _Cryptonomican_. Cypto is the closest to "serious novel", its a bit Pynchonesque, but its also got a lot of math. _Diamond Age_ is the most imaginative and idea rich, its a futurist play ground. To me at least its the most stimulating by far. _Snow Crash_ is pure genre, if you don't like Cyperpunk you probably won't like it, even if its the best cyperpunk novel written. _Zodiac_ never gets any attention, but is pretty damn good actually. It's an eco-political thriller... Posted by: Abe at October 29, 2003 10:19 PM | PERMALINKStephenson was pretty much a victim of the runaway success of "Snow Crash". Take an exciting but undisciplined genre author, suddenly add a vast horde of adoring fanboys/yesmen, subtract any editorial feedback and any need to do any narrative work not related to indulging his own historical interests or pandering to has fanbase, leaven with a pinch of old-fashioned misgyny, and you get, well, everything he's written since. Strip away the self-indulgent attempts at historical vemisilitude from Cryptonomicon, and you're left with "Tom Swift and the Hidden Japanese Gold." Yes, I'm still a little bitter that I blew $30 on the hardbound edition. Won't be making that mistake again. Posted by: doctor memory at October 29, 2003 10:54 PM | PERMALINKI read and enjoyed Cryptonomicon, if a bit guiltily. Yes, it's not great literature, but I don't think anyone but the most ardent fanboys would argue that it is. It it, however, a quick, easy read with enough interesting bits to keep me engaged. Yes, it was "Tom Swift and the Hidden Japanese Gold", but with tons of gee-whiz cryptoanalysis and crazy, excessive adventure. So what? Sometimes you have to read some crap, and Cryptonomicon was definitely good crap. Posted by: Steve at October 29, 2003 11:12 PM | PERMALINKTo redirect the thread a litte: If you think "a permanent ongoing epiphany, an endless immersion in lurid radiance, a drowning in light, a ringing of cosmic harmonies in the ears" is what the inside of Newton's mind was like, you might be surprised to learn that significacntly more than half of Newton's surviving writings concern really eff-ing weird alchemical and prophetic speculations. A transcendent genius, no doubt. But a pure conduit to a higher realm of reason? No. Posted by: aa at October 29, 2003 11:20 PM | PERMALINKI like Quicksilver so far, although I'm only about 100 pages in. Stephenson tends to meander, but his tangential story lines are at least interesting. I'm glad Kevin mentioned The Diamond Age, which is a book I loved. Snow Crash is fun and, at the time, was pretty provocative. But Kevin is right about Stephenson's inability to finish a story. Everything tends to taper off, and even in Cryptonomicon, which has the most climactic ending, things still felt unfinished. But these are minor quibbles for me. I just love to read Stephenson's prose. Posted by: News Abuse at October 29, 2003 11:34 PM | PERMALINKseries of quick thoughts: quicksilver picks up in the second part, finally pulling in shaftoe, badly needed by the time he really shows up. cryptonomicon really shows off what science fiction can and should be in a way that only pattern recognition has managed since. and, frankly, pattern recognition did a better job. as for quick, somewhat trashy stevenson: the big u is great. great. and no, it isn't scifi in any sense. Posted by: jb at October 30, 2003 12:28 AM | PERMALINKAh ha! Knew I'd seen this book mentioned elsewhere recently, and I was right about where, too, though you may dread to learn this. It's what's listed as our friend Don Luskin's "What I'm reading" at the moment. I won't hold that against you or the book, though. Posted by: John at October 30, 2003 01:42 AM | PERMALINKI sympathize with you, Kevin, as I'm a couple hundred pages into Quicksilver myself. Normally I love Neal Stephenson's books--I read The Big U and Cryptonomicon twice each, the others under his own name three times or more--but am finding this latest one hard going, though enjoyable enough with a bit of concentration. I intend to put the book down after part one and save the rest for later, partly because Stephenson himself considers his "Baroque Cycle" to be "7 or 8 novels" that "have been lumped together into three volumes because it is more convenient from a publishing standpoint," so presumably the book Quicksilver constitutes the first three novels in the series. In the meantime I've got a lot of other stuff on tap from the library--new Bujold, new Pratchett, new and next-to-new Grafton, new Lethem, old Clement (and I feel really bad about not having read Mission of Gravity while he was still alive), old Mossman (fortunately, the Tulsa City-County Library actually has a copy of The Stones of Summer), and old Foote (TCCL is giving him an award this December, and as a recently minted History B.A. I really want to read at least the first volume of his Civil War history before he comes to town to accept the award). Posted by: Rob Tomshany at October 30, 2003 01:58 AM | PERMALINKI would like to add my voice to those who say it gets better in the second book. Unfortunately I don't think it gets much
better. Although it sparkles in places, overall it is fairly turgid. As
for other Stephenson to read, aside from his novels there is also his
excellent wired article on underwater cabling: Mother Earth Mother Board. Highly recommended. If you have read Cryptonomicon then you will recognise some of his original source material in there. ive read all of stephenson's books. he always disappoints me but i
read them anyway. why? i dont know. they are good enough, i guess. even
"diamond age", which didnt wind up making any sense at all, was
enjoyable. i guess to me, stephenson has an interesting mind and it
comes through in his work.
So basically, with every book NS tries to come a little closer to Pynchon. Cryptonomicon --> Gravity's Rainbow. Quicksilver --> Mason & Dixon. Posted by: Ron at October 30, 2003 04:15 AM | PERMALINKRon is right, and Mason & Dixon is far superior to Quicksilver. That said, I like Quicksilver anyway. And I underlined the same paragraph you did, Kevin. Neal's best is Cryptonomicon. The book about neo-Victorians and nano-tech was also good until the end, when he simply pasted his outline for the novel into his final draft rather than write another 300 pages. Qua novelist, Neal's never risen above the mediocre. Qua sci-fi writer, I'll go out on a limb and say he leaves his peers in the dust. He's nearly in the company of Verne and Lem, even if he hasn't written anything that compares to either of them at their best. Posted by: tristero at October 30, 2003 05:01 AM | PERMALINKI liked Quicksilver quite a lot. Not the best book of all time, but surprisingly fast of a read considering its length and critics complaining that it was a "long slog". Then again, I love history and I actually liked these characters. I found Cryptonomicon to be somewhat of a disappointment (I finally ended up skipping around since it was too boring to read linearly), but maybe it was because I just couldn't get into WWII or the tech bubble and all the techy terms were sort of off-putting. I can imagine Quicksilver's not for everyone, but I found myself wanting to read the second and third books in the series as soon as I finished it. For a shorter and less hyped Neal Stephenson book, also try Diamond Age. I liked that one as well. Posted by: JMS at October 30, 2003 05:13 AM | PERMALINKtbogg & Kevin, David Foster Wallace piled on too much in Infinite Jest, the way you're talking about. over 200 pages of footnotes that typically did nothing to improve or forward or deepen the book. some people can write the Big Book and some people can't. It doesn't make anyone better. It's just different. Wallace's essays are fabulous (probably stricter editors). His short stories are quite good. But Infinite Jest is one giant turgid slog. Like Quicksilver. Posted by: j at October 30, 2003 05:15 AM | PERMALINKGotta disagree, j, I found Infinite Jest brilliant. A few dozen pages of preachy AA propoganda could have been cut, but the rest is fantastic, footnotes and all. I certainly wouldn't consider it turgid; he uses a lot of big, obscure words, but it always seems like his goal is precision rather than showing off, and you can sense his love of language. The prose itself is snappy and engrossing. Stephenson has some cool ideas for plots, but he's really not in the same class. Posted by: tps12 at October 30, 2003 05:39 AM | PERMALINKStephenson's best novel is his short, early one, "Zodiac". Don't be put off by the stupid-sounding subhead "The Eco-Thriller"; it's a terrific read, and if you live in or near Boston it is particularly entertaining. I enjoyed "Snow Crash" and "The Diamond Age", but it seems as if he needs some editor to kick his butt and complain about his writing getting longer-winded and slower with every book. To my enduring shame, I've been unable to get more than a third of the way through "Cryptonomicon" (having tried twice), so I'm hesitating at this one. (My problem with "Cryptonomicon" is the segments set in the Nineties
dot-com boom; I have trouble paying attention and just want him to get
back to World War II already. Part of the problem may have been that
the bloom was already off the rose when I started reading. I do get the
feeling, from what I have read and hints from others at the rest, that
Stephenson knew perfectly well the general outlines what was going to
happen in America... but I already got the message, thank you very
much.) Snow Crash was cute, and had some ideas I still tell people about becasue they are very interesting. But Cryptonomicon was on another level. The plot bogged down at times, but who cares? I feld like Cryptonomicon was written just for me and my brain. Each page was such a pleasure. I was constantly laughing out loud, or setting the book on my chest to think for a few minutes. I made all of my friends read it. Many of them felt the same way I did, but some enjoyed it but ended up not finishing it. Oh well. I guess that's the problem with recommending a book that was written just for me to someone else. I enjoyed Cryptonomicon so much that I owe it to Stephenson to read all 4 billion pages of the baroque cycle. With any luck, he is still writing for me (and, given that Newton and Leibnitz are characters in it, I think he is). cheers, A-ro Posted by: A-ro at October 30, 2003 06:11 AM | PERMALINKUgh. Cryptonomicon was awful. The basic plot made no sense. The characters were cardboard cutouts. The World War II history was pathetically wrong. The writing style is irritating. Posted by: J. Michael Neal at October 30, 2003 06:12 AM | PERMALINKQuicksilver does improve in the second book. I've found most of Stephenson this way - he has trouble launching and ending. (Snow crash has a brilliant beginning, but it seems to be a cow's head on a horse's body - it doesn't have much to do with the rest of the book.) Infinite Text just infuriated me. I know some people who loved it, but somehow it didn't work out. I can see why people want to compare Stephenson to Pynchon, but as an avid Pynchonophile, I must say that they are in entirely different classes. Pynchon is a producer of classics that will live a long, long time. Stephenson just isn't. He's fun, but no Pynchon. Kundera I adore. I have a strange relationship with his writing... I read Unbearable Lightness
in German when I first moved there, and was learning to speak the
language. This made it extremely slow going, helped my vocabulary
immensely, and made me concentrate on the book far more than I think I
have while reading any other novel. It made me really, really appreciate
his prose and literary style. Make Braudel your first stop. The "slog" part is mainly tons of actual examples, which will open your mind and provide a world-view that actually views the whole world. However, in Vol 3 he spends way too much time on a wave theory he can't really support and I would just skip the third volume. About 30 years ago (shortly after reading 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance') I decided not to read any book written less than 40 years ago. This has served me well. Posted by: serial catowner at October 30, 2003 06:29 AM | PERMALINKThe New Republic had in a recent issue a *scathing* review that pretty much decided me against opening the novel... http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031027&s=friedell102703 Probably requires subscription. Posted by: BayMike at October 30, 2003 06:39 AM | PERMALINKNeal Stephenson is to my friends telling me about something really interesting they saw on the Discovery Channel, what espresso is to the smell of coffee... But not everyone finds interesting what my friends and I do. Therefore, Stephenson is not an all-time great, writing books that everyone should like. He does not please all people some of the time. Rather, he pleases some people (like me) all the time. If you don't like him, I do not judge. I'm just trying to explain why I (and probably someone else you know) get so damn excited about NS. Posted by: A-ro at October 30, 2003 06:51 AM | PERMALINKI read Crypto and found it entertaining. After reading a bunch of Slashdotfolk rave about how brilliant and mind-bendingly complex it was (all that switching between times and storylnes! ahh!), I was expecting a computer-age Gravity's Rainbow. But, it wasn't even close to "mind-bending" and the multiple storylines thing was no more difficult to follow than, say, Pulp Fiction. Infinite Jest is much closer to G's R., IMO. On the other hand, I just tried reading Middlemarch (based on an Atrios post calling it the "best. novel. ever.") and gave up after 100 pages. Such excessive detail and parenthetical wandering just wears me down. It's like sitting in a room with a smart but chatty and self-absorbed 13 year old who wants to tell you how well she did on her history test, and why Billy shouldn't like Suzy quite as much as he does because Suzy really likes Bob but Bob's a Methodist (and we don't talk to them, not that there's anything wrong with it! I mean my aunt is a Methodist, and she has a great collection of figurines that were made back when they really knew how to make them, not like the cheap things you get now!). Ack. Posted by: ChrisL at October 30, 2003 07:31 AM | PERMALINKJust to throw a monkeywrench into the mix, Don DeLillo's Underworld puts them all to shame. So does Ratner's Star and The Names. And Libra. And White Noise. Discuss..... Posted by: tbogg at October 30, 2003 08:02 AM | PERMALINKSkimmed through the comments above, and I've got to say, most of you need to climb down off the high horses a bit. Mitch, You write: Did I pick the one book that is not indicative of Stephenson's talent? No. My guess is that if you didn't like Snow Crash, you aren't going to be a Neal Stephenson fan. I loved Snow Crash, personally. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at October 30, 2003 08:13 AM | PERMALINKI haven't tried Quicksilver -- Cryptonomicon is the last Stephenson I've read, and I suspect it's going to be the last for a while. My problem with Crypto was that you didn't know what the characters wanted as people, and a great deal of the writing seemed to be just fodder. So when I wanted SF I went back to Arthur Dent and his stoic experience of a chaotic universe. Parsing the comments here it's pretty clear that you should read
Quicksilver only if you really like the science -- certainly no-one here
is praising Stephenson as a novelist (no paeans here to his liquid
prose, or his human insight) as opposed to a science writer. O/T Come on Kevin, 7.2% GDP growth, best in twenty years. Given your past posts about the destructiveness of Bush's policies don't you need to deal with this? Posted by: spc67 at October 30, 2003 08:18 AM | PERMALINKspc67 - You remind me of a football fan cheering a touchdown with 3 minutes to go in the game against the other team's backups that cuts the lead to 35 points. Take a look at the overall Bush record on the economy. Don't you need to deal with this? Posted by: lefty skeptic at October 30, 2003 08:31 AM | PERMALINKSnow Crash is the only Stephenson novel I've read and I quite liked it. It was a lot of fun and an entertaining way to spend a hungover weekend. I skimmed a bit of Crypto, but it never grabbed me. I think I totally lack the geek cred. I'd rather read Middlemarch. Or Pynchon or DeLillo or Nabokov if I'm looking for Big Fat Books. Quicksilver's take on 17th century science and capitalism sounds fascinating though. Maybe I'll borrow a copy and leaf through it just for that. Posted by: Paul at October 30, 2003 08:38 AM | PERMALINKspc67 . it's only 8 am in CA. Hell, it's 6:30 in Hawaii! But you're right. Sorry Kev, ya get 12 hours :) spc67 - You remind me of a football fan cheering a touchdown with 3 minutes to go in the game against the other team's backups that cuts the lead to 35 points. Take a look at the overall Bush record on the economy. Don't you need to deal with this? Sure, recession begins the quarter he takes office, that goes in Bubba's column. 9/11 happens, bad economic shcok. Airline bailout (bad move by W), steel tarriffs (bad move by W), initiates tax cuts in response. We are now seeing the effects. Jobless claims under 400,000 (recovery level) for four straight measures now. BTW, it's only been three out of eight years, that makes this Bush's second quarter. Posted by: spc67 at October 30, 2003 08:41 AM | PERMALINKHavn't read Quicksilver yet, I plan on doing it. However, I enjoyed both Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon. The problem I had with _both_ books was the same. They should have been longer. They ended FAR too soon. Both seemed to just evaporate into nothing in the final chapter. It didn't really end well. spc67:I heard about that too. Frankly, I don't think that's good news. (Not yet at least, and it's possibly very bad news). Wait until the employment numbers come back. If they don't get a whole lot better, then the structural unemployment rate has taken a substantial boost. Now, this wouldn't be Bush's fault, per se. (Although a demand-based economic policy would help. A lot.) But it is, to be honest another "sign", of the upcoming financial problems. Companies are taking advantage of overseas labour costs to cut short term costs. This keeps the labour market down as well, allowing them to do more with less investment in labour overall. The downside to this, is that it kills the service industry (less demand) , in addition to the manafacturing and industry jobs which are already leaving in droves. It's a nasty spiral, unfortunately. It'll eventually result in deflation, with all the risks and problems that brings. Posted by: Karmakin at October 30, 2003 08:46 AM | PERMALINKI increasingly wonder why I read Neal Stephenson novels. Kevin is right, plot isn't really his strength. Diamond Age is the worst offender in that regard, devolving slowly into pointless incoherence in the final third, but the closest he comes to a journeyman effort at engaging plot comes in Snow Crash. But if the man can't plot, what are the compensations. Clearly not character. Stephenson's characters are uniformly affectless, emotionally distant cyphers that are about as compelling as bad comic book characters without being nearly as much fun (again excepting Snow Crash). In Cryptonomicon particularly it seems he's trying to write novels of character without having the literary chops to inject any juice or life into his homunculi. Still, you have to admire anyone who can make the code-breaking efforts of the Allies during WWII into a tedious slog that had me checking my watch. Eventually, I'm sure I'll read Quicksilver too, but given Kevin's experience, I feel quite content to wait until I can get it in paperback. Second hand. Posted by: Ulrika O'Brien at October 30, 2003 08:52 AM | PERMALINKI felt burned after I read Cryptonomicon and I won't repeat the
mistake with this last one. When QS came out I wondered if all the
bloggers who were gushing over Stephenson had actually read any of his
books. I find his characters to be one-dimensional and trhe plot
predictable. What makes it worse is that each of these novels is so ambitious. And now we have a trilogy. Apparently the bloggers have a mixed assessment (judging from molecule writes: I find his characters to be one-dimensional and the plot predictable. Well, neither characters nor plot are the point of Stephenson's novels. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at October 30, 2003 09:52 AM | PERMALINKspc67 - "BTW, it's only been three out of eight years, that makes this Bush's second quarter." Spoken like a true fan - "Wait'll next year." Since you think it's OK to use special pleading (September 11, Clinton's recession, etc.) for all the objectively bad numbers that Bush has put up, I'm sure you won't object if anybody does some special pleading for this quarter's results, right? Posted by: lefty skeptic at October 30, 2003 09:53 AM | PERMALINKI guess I'm an aberration. I've loved all the books held up as examples of turgid unreadability so far in this thread -- Infinite Jest, Gravity's Rainbow, Dhalgren, and now Quicksilver. My favorite parts of Quicksilver so far are the etymological asides, where Neal's clearly researched the origins of English words, traced them to their period-appropriate roots, and threw them in as wink-wink asides. Perhaps its some peculiarity of my upbringing, but I love these gentle, teasing author-reader communiques that toy with the conventions of narrative and authorial voice. Pynchon's songs and DFW's footnotes also fall into this category. That said, keep with it Kevin, the second book is laugh-out-loud funny in parts. Posted by: ahpook at October 30, 2003 10:38 AM | PERMALINKObviously Stephenson is a matter of taste (Hint: that means strongly implying that anyone who likes his work is a dope or didn't read it makes you sound like a dope). I loved Crypto and Snow Crash, bailed on The Diamond Age after 20 pages (though I may eventually come back to it) and plan on picking up Quicksilver any day now. I'm totally immune to book reviews, good or bad, outside my close circle of friends, and I wonder why so many people aren't? Who are these people who actually make a bookreading decision based on a New Yorker review? There must be a lot of them. That worries me. Posted by: sidereal at October 30, 2003 11:01 AM | PERMALINKserial catowner - As a matter of fact, I and a group of friends are reading Zen and the Art...right now. I might have to think about the not reading anything from less than 30 years ago thing. Posted by: Mitch Schindler at October 30, 2003 11:18 AM | PERMALINKStephenson truly is a matter of taste. I couldn't get through 10 pages of Snow Crash. I thought Diamond Age was incredibly brilliant. Haven't read Cryptonomicon yet. Not sure if I will even attempt Quicksilver. Interesting that so many left-leaning people enjoy SF. That sort of goes against general perception I'd say. Most SF lovers tend to be conservative thinkers in my experience. I guess technically one could consider Stephenson and the interest in him (as in being compared to Pychon and David Foster Wallace) to be an appreciation of literature rather than SF. Anyway, just a mildly amusing observation. Posted by: Moebetta at October 30, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINKI finished Quicksilver before I allowed myself a peek at what anybody else thought, and I've been baffled that it's not receiving a more positive response. I found it endlessly fascinating -- even his digressions. Especially his digressions. My review (no spoilers) is here. Further thoughts on NS and Pynchon on style are here. Posted by: nate at October 30, 2003 12:46 PM | PERMALINKI liked it. It wasn't the best Stephenson book I've read, but it was decent. Of course, my wife is getting her PhD in Early Modern Britain, so I was reading passages out loud just to watch her bug out from some minor - or not so minor - historical gaffe; or asking her if so-and-so was a real person, and if so, would they do what they just did on page 475[random page number, don't read anything into it]. She liked the Barkers, though she thinks they are not as much fun as the real freak-shows like the Diggers, Levelers, and Fifth Monarchists. Reading out loud as performance theater added a whole new depth to the book. Posted by: Phalamir at October 30, 2003 01:34 PM | PERMALINK"BTW, it's only been three out of eight years, that makes this Bush's second quarter." Aaggh! C'mon, spc67! Halloween isn't till tomorrow! On topic: Zodiac was excellent. Snow Crash was excellent, for cyberpunk. Cyberpunk is, IMHO, a pretty stupid genre. I think you can dislike Snow Crash and still like another NS book. Diamond Age was cyberpunk also, but even better than Snow Crash. I thought it was pretty uneven, but the great parts, more than made up for the lousy parts. Cryptonomicon is one of my favorite novels. I liked the story(ies), the characters, and the trademark minutiae that make it such a slog. You have to read patiently. I'm about halfway through Quicksilver, and so far I would say everything I said about Crypto applies to Quicksilver. I was excited to start it like some people are excited to start a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle. My two cents I have finished it, and I'll observe that it greatly picks up pace in the second act ("Book II") as more characters are involved. THe first part sets up the Era somewhat, but the real interplay of ideas doesn't come in until Eliza gets to Amsterdam. Then all the set-up comes together in a rush. THe story then becomes one that not only traces the change from Alchemy to Science, but from mercantilism to capitalism and from the last gasps of feudalism to the rise of individual rights and the beginning of the end of slavery.
"traces the change from Alchemy to Science, but from mercantilism to capitalism and from the last gasps of feudalism to the rise of individual rights and the beginning of the end of slavery."...Amazing, all those changes can be concentrated into one generation. This is the wishful thinking and the laziness of the schoolboy. I know of no academic consensus that allows for that kind of move. It seems an educated person should be thoroughly irritated by this kind of book. These kinds of books are really best for people who are lacking motivation and imagination to study these kinds of questions, like kids. I know most of you are in fact better educated than this, so why are you wasting your time? Posted by: jko at October 30, 2003 04:02 PM | PERMALINKI enjoyed Snow Crash and Diamond Age, but Zodiac is my favorite Stephenson book. It is the only one I've read with a real ending. I haven't attempted Crypto or Quicksilver -- the size scares me off. Posted by: Luke Francl at October 30, 2003 06:20 PM | PERMALINKWell, neither characters nor plot are the point of Stephenson's novels. I agree. I would suggest that in that case, Stephenson should be writing non-fiction. Posted by: Ulrika O'Brien at October 31, 2003 08:35 AM | PERMALINKMen are close to one another by nature. They diverge as a result of repeated practice. Posted by: Watanabe Prascilla Charmichael at December 20, 2003 02:16 PM | PERMALINKIt's rather interesting for me.. http://pictures-of-infected-tattoos-and-piercings.skidman.com If I could get my membership fee back, I'd resign from the human race. Posted by: Harawitz Jodi Harawitz at March 16, 2004 08:14 PM | PERMALINKPlease remember that the labels are your own. Posted by: Badanes Matt at April 28, 2004 05:20 AM | PERMALINKGratitude is merely the secret hope of further favors. Posted by: Davidov Veronica at April 28, 2004 05:20 AM | PERMALINKIt is wise to apply the oil of refined politeness to the mechanisms of friendship. Sounds very interesting. Its rather interesting for me.. http://apnea.bcure.com/ All Internal - Ass Traffic - Midwest Mandy - Interracial Action - Hot Latina Girls - The Big Swallow - Barefoot Confidential - Vanilla Teens Black Cream - Old Sexy Sluts - Lingerie Hotties - Fresh Teen Panties - First Time Fellas - shemale sex pics - older women sex Posted by: please bang my wife at June 30, 2004 09:07 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz 4606 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 24, 2004 02:11 AM | PERMALINK5402 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 01:49 AM | PERMALINK7304 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 01:51 AM | PERMALINK3170 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 02:17 PM | PERMALINK281 Look at http://oncas.tramadol-web.com/ its the hizzy for online casino action any where! Posted by: casino online at August 27, 2004 08:34 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
