Has Neal Stephenson become too accessible?
salon.com
salon.com
The more interesting question they seem to be getting at is whether he's sacrificed something that was interesting about his writing out of a desire to increase accessibility. You could even just leave accessibility out of it and ask: are Neal Stephenson's most recent novels as interesting as his older ones, and if not, why not? I do think there's something to the hypothesis that he used to build these intricate, complex worlds with a lot of depth to them, and is doing so less in his more recent novels.
edit: Come to think of it, doing it accessibly sort of is his thing to begin with. I've heard Snow Crash described as a more-accessible reimagining/retelling of Gibson/Sterling style cyberpunk, which isn't too far off.
Don't get mad that your favorite author produced a work that is 'more accessible' or that it isn't what you wanted. Blindly buying because of brand name has always been a bad idea.
On the other hand, if Stephenson has a fault as a writer, it's the way he writes books' endings. The ends of Snow Crash or Diamond Age were just a mess. He skirted that in Cryptonomicon by just not really having an ending. I confess to not having been able to make it to the end of The Baroque Cycle, so I can't say. But then Anathem had a real, if rather out-of-left-field, ending.
So I think that while he may be trending toward greater accessibility, he's also trending to writing better endings.
This review for REAMDE is the first Stephenson review I've seen that didn't pan the climax, which might say something. BTW, did you notice that REAMDE is designed to make unix people's eyes cross?
True enough, but that's quite common in science fiction.
scientific and philosophic theories, which are given different names (like Hylaean Theoric World)
That's also true. But if you're already familiar with the concept, then the nomenclature shouldn't bother you too much (it didn't me). If you're not already familiar with it, then you won't know it's any different (until you're at a dinner party trying to talk philosophy with someone, and are met with blank stares).
The only NS book I've read is Anathem, and while I enjoyed the story his writing style seemed too self-indulgent for me to really get into. Renaming/redescribing major mathematical and philosophical theories in a parallel dimension? Look how smart NS is. Quantum monk space ninjas? Oh man that's so cool can they be pirates too?
That being said, he's been lauded so consistently that I'd like to read more of his work and figure out what I'm missing. What would HN'ers recommend?
>Neal, in Cryptonomicon why did you call Windows and MacOS by their true names but used the fictitious name 'Finux' to refer to what is obviously 'Linux?' Does this mean that you hate Linux?
Since Finux was the principal operating system used by the characters in the book, I needed some creative leeway to have the fictitious operating system as used by the characters be different in minor ways from the real operating system called Linux. Otherwise I would receive many complaints from Linux users pointing out errors in my depiction of Linux. This is why Batman works in Gotham City, instead of New York--by putting him in Gotham City, the creators afforded themselves the creative license to put buildings in different places, etc.
http://web.mac.com/nealstephenson/Neal_Stephensons_Site/Old_...
Edit: tried to fix formatting
But if you want to give Stephenson a second shot, I suggest Diamond Age.
I've read The Diamond Age about 30 times. The world is very deep, and the characters are mostly interesting (if a little hammy - NS's characters are all just a little one dimensional).
But I'm pretty sure his fundamental motivation was just, fuck it, if people write Star Trek / Star Wars crossover fanfiction I can write my story about a hacker samurai pizza detective. And we read it, because once in a while it's fun to read a story about hacker samurai pizza detectives.
The problem, as I see it with Stephenson, is that he goes in to such detail that he always needs to build up the world in such a depth that it can make the opening to his books long winded. Any time I have recommended a Stephenson book (and I've read them all, and recommend them all) I warn people to get past page 100, because that's when you will get sucked in to the story. His writing style can be a little unsettling until you get used to it (IMHO), but once you are in there you won't want to put the book down.
As for recommendations - Cryptonomicon, Snowcrash, Diamond Age are all great - the later two are far easier reading but still show the great depths of knowledge and research put in to the books. And once done with those - read the rest.
For those in NYC - he is making an appearance at the Barnes and Nobles in Union Sq. on Friday from 7pm to 8pm. I went last time and it was a pleasure hearing him talk about his methodologies behind his books - hoping this one will be as good.
So, of course, I now own that one.
His prose is quite dry, even cold. It took a little getting used to but I found the effort very much worth it.
(Side note: I don't know the names of a good amount of those things in the real world. I could explain the HTW theories, Lorites, and whatnot to an average person, but the real terminology escapes me.)
Really great fiction leverages the reader's powers of construction and imagination. Stephenson gives indicators of the world he's describing and leaves the reader to construct it while he gets on with other matters. If nothing else it's a better use of bandwidth. Ayn Rand lays it all out, does anyone seriously enjoy reading that? The reader's participation in construction gives them an ultimately better grasp of his idea, and a better foundation to think through the implications. Better yet, it opens the possibility of imagining worlds consistent with the plot but different from the author's imagination.
The downside is those readers who haven't time to figure it out, or miss the clues. Or maybe miss some of the background reading, which provides templates for a lot of what Stephenson's getting at. There is a lot of philosophy embedded in the book, if you aren't acquainted with it you're moving without some crucial maps.
So no, the style isn't "self-indulgent". It's a tool for communicating and working with some really complicated ideas. I'm sorry you didn't like the book, but you could just say you don't get it without assuming the author is just showing off?
That said, Reamde is a fun read. I suppose it could be put into the book category of Thriller as the article suggests. I'd give it a 3/5 stars, as in, I liked it, but won't bother reading it again. Which is how I feel about most decent thrillers. But then again, it appears that it will have an actual climactic ending to the story/book, which Stephenson has failed to do many times as his other books just peter out without ending properly (Snow Crash, Cryptinomicon, etc).
It is more accessible. It is a thriller, and could be easily sold as airport pulp. There's a few descriptions of unix commands that various hackers are taking that would be skipped in a normal thriller, which does make it a Stephenson book. But, I am glad that Stephenson is experimenting with writing styles. Why would I want to read the same book over and over, just with different characters (which is all too common for writers)?
I'm pretty sure I've seen every single one of Stephenson's books been called his "most accessible" somewhere in this thread.
In my experience, "The Baroque Cycle" was Stephenson's most accessible, while "Anathem" and "Cryptonomicon" were the hardest to get my mind around. However, I don't think this has as much to do with Stephenson's writing, as it does with the fact that I was an English Lit major, and can barely wrap my brain around math.
E.g. - a complex web of semi-historical figures? No problem! Plot-lines that revolve around mathematical concepts? Oh god, my brain just exploded.
Reamde seems like a trip back to the style of the Stephen Bury books he wrote with his uncle, The Cobweb & Interface, both enjoyable reads.
I'm too lazy to check if thats actually the case though.