Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Books Media

Salon Interviews Neal Stephenson 256

Posted by timothy from the whose-books-bring-me-joy dept.
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...""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Salon Interviews Neal Stephenson More

Salon Interviews Neal Stephenson

Comments Filter:

  • Neal Stephenson... (Score:5, Informative)

    by FrYGuY101 ( 770432 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @08:47AM (#8927625) Journal
    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 [stud.ntnu.no]. It's a good read.
    • but ever since snowcrash he's been going down hill. cryptonomicon was merely good. quicksilver is really impressive for teh depth of the research, but once you get past that, it's 800 pages of poilitics set in the 17th century.

      • Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by torpor ( 458 )
        800 pages of politics set in the 17th century sounds kind of interesting to me.

        but that may just be because i'm burned out on microsoft-weilding zaibatsu's building and using technology which a) yes, of course is feasible, but b) ain't here yet. god, do we need -another- 'advanced' computing metaphor story here people? i don't freakin' think so. booo-oring.

        give me the dissentry of the 17th century over snowcrashin' in the 21st century, any day.
      • I loved every single one of Neal Stephenson's books (even Zodiac) but I couldn't finish Quicksilver. It's far too long and it's quite painful to keep track of all the details involved, although there are a few fascinating passages and it's something of a tour de force.

        I can recommend Kil'n People by David Brin, though...
      • If Cryptonomicon was "merely good" I'm seriously scared of Quicksilver.

        Cryptonomicon was the first (and so far only) Stephenson book I've tried and I just found it to bad to be able to read. It seem like ever other page had either a metaphor or simile that was borrowed from one of those deliberately bad writing contest.

        It's been a few years, but I remember a few of them like: ...he swiped his credit card like an assassin swiping a razor across his victims neck. ...the sailors let out a collective sigh l
      • Well if you're going that route you could say it started about 2/3 the way through snow crash. This guy needs to learn how to end a book. They start off great and exciting, settle down a bit, and then wimp out.
      • The Confusion is the same. Some cool stuff with Shaftoe, then boring banking stuff. When did Stepenson turned from the Geek Writer into the Business Writer?

      • Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @10:10AM (#8928423) Homepage Journal
        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.

        • Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by SpryGuy ( 206254 )
          Cryptonomicon really was a struggle for the first 400 page. It was strange, though, that after slogging through that first half, I couldn't put it down. It really got interesting.

          He just needs a good editor. I mean, the two or three pages he spent describing how to eat the perfect bowl of Captain Crunch really wasn't necessary and didn't add much.

          I loved Snow Crash though.
          • He just needs a good editor.

            Don't even start Quicksilver, then.

            Halfway through Cryptonomicon, I thought is was one of the best books I'd read. I didn't feel that way by the end, for other reasons.

            The entire time I was reading Quicksilver, I thought "edit, edit, edit".

            The book should have been about half as long, and nothing would have been lost.

            (there are some good parts in Quicksilver, but the majority is fluff.)

        • Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ajs ( 35943 ) <{ajs} {at} {ajs.com}> on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @12:17PM (#8929973) Homepage Journal
          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.
          • anti-erudite phase of American history

            I am insulted, and bit shamed, that you feel I was being anti-erudite. I'm not. Two of my favorite authors are Carl Sagan and Carl Hiassen, fer crying out loud! If I'm anti-anything, I'm anti spending-a-lot-of-effort-researching-something-an d -then-being-unable-to-present-the-information-in-a -subtle-and-engaging-manner-without-acting-like-it -is-the-most-important-shit-ever-and-then-never-br inging-it-up-again. But I suppose that comes from being an essay buf
      • pssh. everything went downhill after "The Big U".

    • Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flaez ( 471571 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:01AM (#8927743) Homepage
      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???)

      • Mind-controling Sumerian... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mengel ( 13619 ) <mengel@users.sou ... rge.net minus pi> on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @10:06AM (#8928387) Homepage Journal
        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...

      • Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by f0rtytw0 ( 446153 )
        I have to agree with you there. His books are great except for the last page or two. I won't let two pages ruin a book though. I may cringe at the endings, which are so very very short and wrapped up so fast compared to the rest of the book, but the books are still worthy of reading in the end.

      • Except at the end of a program, you have close all your open brackets.

        He does that. It just looks like }}}}}}}}.

      • The big showdown IS the equivalent (metaphorical (of closing brackets)).

        Or {parentheses, as the case may be}.

        You didn't see the last chapter of Cryptonomicon in the right light. To me, it looked like a friggin' LISP program with several hundred pages worth of loose ends tied up as best Stephenson could manage.

        (My fave (LISP) idiom was the square brace (that told the interpreter, "dammit, *you* count the parentheses (I'm done here]
        • He does that. It just looks like }}}}}}}}.

          what he said. this is really the best (and shortestest) characterisation of NS's 'plot-crashing' I can think of.

          yep, the concept of a human 'machine language' is cool. but, in a cyberpunk (not, faery or whatnot) setting, shouldn't at least an attempt be made to be neurologically credible? just evoking sumerian is lame. if you study only a little bit of sumerian, you will see that it is just another human language people write their everyday stuff in. for my taste

      • Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @12:56PM (#8930538)
        Snowcrash is 1 part nifty and 3 parts lame as hell. I'm sorry, I just wasn't that big a fan of the book... it didn't even come close to suspending my disbelief. Look at the main character:

        1) He invented half the virtual world, knew all its tricks, wrote the swordfighting code, etc.
        2) He was a master swordfighter himself.
        3) He owned like the fastest and coolest car ever.
        4) But as the book starts, he's living in a storage container and working as a pizza boy? Er... huh?
        5) Not to mention, he's like 30 years old. There's no way anyone can accomplish this in 30 years of *work*, much less 15 or so.

        Not even close to believable.

        Oh, and then there were the stupid pointless scenes of gore that made me almost puke. (One of the cops getting impaled, for instance... had nothing to do with the story, was just there to gross you out.)

        That said, the premise of the book was quite clever... but the lameness outweighed the coolness by quite a bit. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, of course, but Snowcrash was the first, and last, Stephenson I'll read.

        • Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:3, Informative)

          by nessus42 ( 230320 )

          Not even close to believable.

          Clearly you just didn't get the aesthetic -- it wasn't supposed to be believable. Snowcrash was originally supposed to be a graphic novel -- i.e., a comic book -- but the artist bailed or flaked out, so Stephenson decided to make it into a text novel instead, while keeping the comic book sensibility. That's one of the reasons why the book is so interesting and groundbreaking. This crossbreeding of mediums had not been attempted much previously. Or at least not so successful

    • Snowcrash vs Cryptomicon : WWF final (Score:4, Funny)

      by ishmaelflood ( 643277 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:20AM (#8927904)
      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!

      • Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

        by arevos ( 659374 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @12:48PM (#8930436) Homepage
        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.

  • So much for metaphors (Score:3, Funny)

    by tgv ( 254536 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @08:48AM (#8927637) Journal
    And the mind of the reader will crash if you make a small mistake?
    • Yeah, a reader 'bluescreen' basically goes like this:

      Reader: 'What?'

      'Huh.'

      This is usually followed by an immediate reboot ... err trip to bookstore.
    • (please ignore other copy of this post, it got screwed up)

      Yeah. A reader 'bluescreen' goes sort of like this:

      Reader: 'What?'
      [reads last sentence again]
      'Huh!'
      [throws book across room]

      This is often followed by an immediate reboot ... err... trip to the book store.

  • What? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @08:50AM (#8927654)
    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.

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Codger ( 96717 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:12AM (#8927839)
      "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.

    • Oh, I know... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Allen Zadr ( 767458 ) * <Allen.Zadr@g m a i l . com> on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:15AM (#8927866) Journal
      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.

    • Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shadowcabbit ( 466253 ) <cx AT thefurryone DOT net> on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:16AM (#8927879) Journal
      Well, this is an obvious troll. But I feel the need to say something about it anyway. Sue me.

      You seem to be comparing Asimov and Grisham's works as if they were virtually interchangeable. They're not. Disregarding the issue of whether one is better than the other (and one always is better, depending on who you ask), Isaac Asimov's science fiction and John Grisham's legal fiction cannot easily be compared because they are two different and distinct forms of fiction.

      Grisham's work takes the existing laws of the legal world (in this case, actual legislation) and uses them as a framework for his novels. Lawyers already know these laws, and more often than not they're so common-knowledge that even IANALs can easily grasp the basics. In other words, a non-sci-fi author works with what is already known.

      Asimov's work took what (at the time) was a far-off concept and imagined what it would be like once real life caught up with it. Good science fiction isn't fiction at all-- it's philosophy and prediction. At some point in the future-- eventually-- we are going to have to deal with the prospect of robotics (Asimov). At some point in the future we are going to have to deal with direct computer-to-brain interfaces (Gibson). At some point we are going to have the technology that the authors of yesterday detailed and in some cases designed for us.

      Maybe I fell too hard for an obvious troll, but you raised what I thought was a semi-interesting (if somewhat ignorant) question.

      • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Crispy Critters ( 226798 )
        "Good science fiction isn't fiction at all-- it's philosophy and prediction."

        Not always. One aspect of science fiction is that the author has complete control over the universe in which it is set. The author can use this control to create an environment specially tuned for the exploration of a theme of traditional literature. As an example, consider the themes of love and loneliness in Asimov's "The Naked Sun". Examining the hypothetical role of robots in society can also relate to the role of individ

    • A goodly %age of geeks are wannabe fiction writers. As such they have a degree of respect for anyone who can actually write any fiction better than passable.

      Given that they have a reasonable amount of time on their hands they will have attempted to write some fiction. Probably in a world of latex sex kittens and free bananas. They know its kinda hard.

      If you enjoy someones work - respect the effort and talent involved - and most of all were impressed with some of the ideas in the guys work - its worth show

    • Re:What? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by torpor ( 458 )
      Fiction propels fact in the barrent wasteland that is Mans' inspirational landscape.

      If it weren't for the sci-fi authors of the 30's, 40's and 50's, we wouldn't nearly be as motivated a technological culture as we currently are.

      I'm amazed that you are unable to see this connection, honestly. Maybe you don't know what the word 'inspiration [reference.com]' means?

    • Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hplasm ( 576983 )
      Because they can spell?
    • are our futurists, because they are basically science nerds who write novels and short stories from their perspective. And it's really that simple. It doesn't mean they are all bang-on accurate prophets, but the really good ones and the good examples tend to have a nice track record so far on extrapolating technology trends and societal patterns.

    • Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Mark Hood ( 1630 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:37AM (#8928073) Homepage
      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.

      Maybe because they can spell and punctuate properly? :)

      Mark
      --
      In accordance with all spelling/grammar flames, this posting contains one (1) error.

  • Quicksilver (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anjrober ( 150253 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @08:51AM (#8927666)
    What do people think about Quicksilver? I am just finishing it and am very disappointed. I loved cryptonomicon but am struggling thru quicksilver. Why bring back waterhouse and the shaftoes, can't we think of new characters? And the story is dragging by. Long passages on life in feudal europe, the french, the english, the dutch, it's dull. What do other people think though?

    • Re:Quicksilver (Score:3, Informative)

      by BigHungryJoe ( 737554 )
      Some of it was dull, yes.

      I liked the description of naval tactics as they were trying to escape the pirates.

      I also liked the fact that he has a Waterhouse founding MIT.

    • Re:Quicksilver (Score:4, Interesting)

      by netsrek ( 76063 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:11AM (#8927827) Homepage
      I found it utterly compelling.

      The detail, the incredibly tumultuous times... all these historically great scientific figures who hadn't worked out how to do science yet.... The political upheaval... the fights over the calculus... the amazing picture of London it built up...

      a couple of pages here and there dragged on, but I was entranced. I called in sick for a couple of days to work to simply sit at home and read it.

      I don't get the Snow Crash hero-worship though. It's kind of crap. Cryptonomicon was brilliant, Diamond Age slightly less so and Zodiac was a good yarn.
    • I just finished Quicksilver and enjoyed it alot. I read it a chapter or two at a time over the course of a few months and savoured every page. You have to approach it like a long cross country car trip, don't sit there whining "Are we there yet?", sit back and enjoy the ride.
    • I read Cryptonomicon and found it very interesting, so I bought Quicksilver on the strength of that. I didn't finish it because I found it far too dry for my taste. Perhaps I shall go back to it another day.

    • Re:Quicksilver (Score:2, Insightful)

      by imadork ( 226897 )
      Quicksilver is the first book that I truly got pissed off while reading. While I appreciated the detail and wide scope of the book, it didn't have the motion that his other books had. It felt like being in a fast car but being stuck behind someone doing 20 in a no-passing zone. Would that be page rage instead of road rage?

      Eventually, I finished it, after putting it down for weeks at a time and then reading in three-day stretches. I'll read the second eventually, but maybe I'll wait for it to hit the discou

    • It was a sad day for me when a Neal Stephenson novel lost out to watching paint dry in the battle for my leisure time.
  • ...Is the bane of too many crap writers.

  • Writing != Programming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WwWonka ( 545303 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @08:52AM (#8927669)
    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.

    • Re:Writing != Programming (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ThePretender ( 180143 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @08:58AM (#8927711) Homepage
      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.

    • Re:Writing != Programming (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Uhm, writing != programming?

      How would YOU know? Have you done both?

      Stephenson has. Not many people know this as he doesn't really advertise it, but Neal Stephenson is a key contributor to the Linux kernel. He is also responsible for adding Chuck Cranor's UVM to NetBSD.

    • Re:Writing != Programming (Score:5, Funny)

      by sbma44 ( 694130 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:33AM (#8928028)
      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.

      • ObSimpsons (Score:2, Funny)

        by rsadelle ( 719824 )
        Lisa: Can you tell me what happens at the end of the series?
        J.K. Rowling, increasingly annoyed: He grows up and marries you. Is that what you want to hear?
        Lisa, dreamily: Yes.

  • The short version (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "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..."

    Or to put a Tao spin on it ...

    "The finest program begins with a single keystroke."

  • So... (Score:4, Funny)

    by xconslash ( 521219 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @08:55AM (#8927692) Homepage
    One character at a time. Does that mean writing and programming are both O(n)?

  • Works in Progress (Score:4, Interesting)

    by diogenesx ( 580716 ) <kyle.m.hallNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @08:58AM (#8927709)
    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.

  • I'll only read the article (Score:3, Funny)

    by imadork ( 226897 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:10AM (#8927817) Homepage
    if someone assures me that is has a @$^@$%&$ ending!

    • Re:I'll only read the article (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @10:57AM (#8928933)
      > 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!)

  • if you like Stephenson (Score:3, Informative)

    by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j AT ww DOT com> on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:11AM (#8927835) Homepage
    go and read:
    Greg Bear
    William Gibson (you already knew that)
    Terry Pratchett (more humorous, but nice)
    "the light of other days" (forgot the author)

    there's some really good stuff in there.

    A friend and I trade our 'best sf' books, fortunately fair use still allows that (but I'm beginning to wonder for how long). If the goons get their way fair use on other media could go out the window too, let's see:

    This book is sold under the following EULA:

    You may read this book *once*. Upon reading the last page of the book you agree to destroy it. You may not discuss the contents of this book in private or in public, nor shall you lend it to someone else or give it away, other than unopened and unread. :)

    • Re:if you like Stephenson (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Strange_Attractor ( 160407 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:24AM (#8927940) Homepage
      The Light of Other Days = Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter
      I'd recommend Baxter too, especially the Manifold... series. And EARLY James Hogan (Voyage From Yesteryear, Inherit the Stars, Thrice Upon a Time)

    • More in the same vein... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DG ( 989 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @11:26AM (#8929284) Homepage Journal
      Finished reading "Con-Fusion" yesterday; great read.

      More in a similar vein:

      "The Days of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley Robinson

      "Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus" by Orson Scott Card (the last decent book he wrote)

      Less speculative, but historical and rollicking good fun: "The Aubury-Maurtin Series" by Patrick O'Brian, starting with "Master and Commander"

      Pure history: "The Invasion of Canada" by Pierre Burton

      DG

  • Good Baroque Cycle Resource (Score:5, Informative)

    by palutke ( 58340 ) * on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @09:31AM (#8928011)
    Metaweb [metaweb.com] - A wiki about the Cryptonomicon/Quicksilver Universe, with contributions fro Mr. Stephenson
  • Seriously. I was at my local library the other day (picking up Fedora Core UNLEASHED--who dl's ISO's?) and saw his books over in the SF section. This is an -ahem- colorful area populated by Jedi School books and assorted crapola that the library doesn't want to taint their Fiction stacks.

    Snow Crash, OK. Diamond Age, yes yes. But Cryptonomicon is not very science fiction-y. It's more Tom Clancy than SF--I mean these are computer scientists and all, but they aren't neutronic worms living on the surface of a star. And I just know the librarians are going to toss Quicksilver over there once it's off the "New" shelf. This book is historical fiction-- albeit about nerds, but it's "HF" none the less. (I can't wait for the next Con! Ye Olde Renaissance Faire!).

    When's this guy going to get some credit for moving on?

    • Re:Why is he still considered Science Fiction? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dltallan ( 184197 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @10:48AM (#8928848)
      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".

    • Well, there may be hope. Not all of his books are in the SF section. "The Big U" is almost always found in the "literature" section (whatever that means) or the plain old fiction section.

      Granted, this is prolly his least populare book (i acutally enjoyed it) and it was his first. So he hadn't really been pigeonholed by marketers yet. But at least there is a precidence for him not having all of his book in SF. So perhaps this book will end up keeping the lonely "the big U" company on the fiction shelves
    • Cryptonomicon is not very science fiction-y. It's more Tom Clancy than SF--I mean these are computer scientists and all, but they aren't neutronic worms living on the surface of a star. And I just know the librarians are going to toss Quicksilver over there once it's off the "New" shelf. This book is historical fiction-- albeit about nerds, but it's "HF" none the less.

      I've found that my local librarians are responsive -- indeed, grateful -- when I tell that a book published as "science fiction" is actua

    • But Cryptonomicon is not very science fiction-y.

      Wrong. Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, and the Confusion is science-fiction.

      Reason is ROT13'ed for spoilers.

      Ubj znal cbyvgvpny rfcvbantr obbxf unir na vzzbegny punenpgre?

      Rabpu Ebbg vf vzzbegny. Ur nyfb nccrnef gb unir gur cbjre gb envfr gur qrnq, ng yrnfg, Obool Funsgbr oryvrirf Rabpu unf guvf cbjre va Pelcgbabzvpba.

      Va Dhvpxfvyire, ur unf nanpebavfgvp xabjyrqtr nobhg veba naq narzvn gung nccrnef gb or qryvorengr. Ur vf nyfb engure ybat yvirq n

    • What is it about SF-heads and Slashdotters that makes the group so damned exclusionary? It seems like every time an author is discussed here, and the article or a poster refers to that person as an SF author, a huge argument ensues over whether that person or a given work is "really" SF. Please.

      When I first got into SF many decades ago, the two main attractions for me were cool conceptualizations of space stuff and described universes where diversity of species was honored and worked towards. Not all th
    • I was at my local library [...] and saw his books over in the SF section.

      I was at my local library the other day, and was pleasantly surprised to discover that they had completely eliminated the artificial category segregation. Adult Fiction was one long zigzag, alphabetical by author. Hyperion, Ileum, Joe Kurtz, etc were sandwiched between novels from two other Simmonses. Definitely the way a library should operate -- better for the readers, easier for the staff. You might want to suggest this to your li

    • But the only way you can work on it is by hitting one character at a time...

    And sometimes you just kill them off, you sadist!

    Really, you'd think a writer (especially Stephenson) would know the difference between computer keys (the little plastic things on your keyboard) and computer characters (the little invisible things in your computer's memory).

  • Parts of the book (Score:2, Informative)

    by Iron Fusion ( 591400 )
    I actually found the "boring banking parts", the scenes at the Royal Society, etc, more interesting than the sometimes-overblown "adventure" parts of Quicksilver

  • Similar to Usenix 2004 Keynote (Score:3, Interesting)

    by po8 ( 187055 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2004 @11:55AM (#8929683)

    Neal Stephenson gave a talk similar to this interview as a keynote last June at Usenix 2004 in San Antonio. Turns out he's also a rocket geek, so I got to chat with him briefly: very nice guy.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close