The System of the World 140
| The System of the World | |
| author | Neal Stephenson |
| pages | 892 |
| publisher | William Morrow |
| rating | 7, 5 for the trilogy overall |
| reviewer | Shawn Stewart |
| ISBN | 0060523875 |
| summary | The Baroque Cycle crosses the finish line, but like all of Stephenson's books, finishes ugly. |
The third book in Neal Stephenson's epic Baroque Cycle shares its name with the third volume in Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica; this is no coincidence, as a large part of this book deals with Newton himself. The vast majority of this volume follows Daniel Waterhouse, aging Fellow of the Royal Society, occasional foil and possibly the only friend of Newton, as he attempts to complete the charge assigned to him by Princess Caroline, his future monarch. Of course, Waterhouse doesn't really believe in the monarchy, but he has an agenda of his own, and can see the wisdom in trying to reconcile Newton and Leibniz.
The System of the World is the most chronologically compact of the trilogy. Quicksilver took place over a sixty-year time period and The Confusion over a decade and a half. Most of the action in this book takes place in the middle of 1714, as the ailing Queen Anne nears death, and the question of who should be the next monarch brings England near to another civil war. On one side of the debate are the Whigs, supporters of the Hanoverian succession, free trade, and industry. On the other side are the Tories, who would undo the effects of the Glorious Revolution and bring back the Catholic James III from exile in France -- supporters of landed aristocracy, unlimited monarchy, and slavery.
The Tories seem to be winning, due in no small part to the machinations of Louis XIV, whose support has allowed "Half-Cocked" Jack Shaftoe to build himself into the most powerful counterfeiter and criminal mastermind in London. Shaftoe has matured, though, and gained a powerful gravitas. Waterhouse also is not the indecisive young man or even the uncertain old man of Quicksilver; he has accepted his old age and his mortality and for once in his life shapes events rather than being borne along by them.
There is real pathos in Waterhouse's character. The choices that he has made will lead England toward steam and industrialization, and in two powerful scenes he has the chance to see the downside of the future he has made. At one point he visits a large-scale industrial operation that has left the earth around it poisoned and wasted, finding nothing to compare the scene to except Hell. At the other he witnesses workers toiling around a machine that might explode at any point, and wonders how many other dangers will be created by inventors simply trying to get things done a little faster. Still, he perseveres; for as near as the Baroque Cycle has one point, it is to explore how the nation-state, modern banking, and modern scientific method arose from the chaos of the 17th century.
In Stephenson's world, this is accomplished by plots, dueling, daring escapes, bribery, and the occasional disruption of orchestral concerts. As always, when writing a thrilling action scene, he is second to none. When this book is moving, it moves really well.
Stephenson's writing style is essentially the same as in the first two novels, although he does seem to be engaging in more deliberate anachronisms here (I counted two Monty Python references, and what I'm fairly certain is a scripting language joke). This makes his constant use of Inappropriate Capitalization and Barock Spelling somewhat more tedious to me, but I phant'sy any reader that has gotten this far will probably be able to overlook it. He still has the ability to make the reader smile once per page, and his meticulous attention to detail shows. It's clear that Stephenson is fascinated by the period, and indicative of a good writer that he actually got me to care about it as well -- his books motivated me to read some of his references, and others besides. There are also some classic hilarious scenes, chief among them a duel fought with naval artillery.
The typical flaws of a Stephenson novel are also present, unfortunately. A rather large number of characters are built up for dozens of pages and are then abruptly killed, never to be mentioned again -- and a fair number of established characters meet the same fate. This volume also contains the worst sex scene Stephenson has ever written, which is saying something. And, as is typical of Stephenson, the book goes until the end, and then just stops, after another Deus Ex Aurum ending. This time he's included a few short codas as a postscript, but be warned now: there are many unanswered questions left at the end.
In fact, the ending of the book made me somewhat angry. Fully explaining why would spoil everything, so I will tread lightly. Let me instead go back to Isaac Newton. Newton is a tragic figure because he was a bridge between two eras; he possessed one of the finest rational minds the world has ever known, and yet he spent the majority of his long life with alchemical and mystical researches. Stephenson is too lenient on Newton with regards to his paranoia and murderous rage, but curiously lessens him by suggesting that Newton simply failed to accomplish some of the things he set out to do.
I have been an avid reader of each Neal Stephenson book, and I will probably read the next book he writes. Still, I hope that his editor cracks down on him in his next endeavor, and that he doesn't allow his fondness for some characters to override the point he's trying to make.
You can purchase The System of the World from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sidetracked... (Score:2, Interesting)
I liked Zodiac, I found Snow Crash interesting and funny, Interface was workmanlike but engaging, and The Diamond Age is one of the books I have re-read most often.
But I just didn't "get" Cryptonomicon. Yes, lots of running around, intrigue and so on. But in the end I didn;t find it satisfying. I'm afraid that, for the Baroque trilogy, I haven't even made it past the cover blurb.
I'm sure many others will disagree (and I apologize to Mr Stephenson for any hurt feelings should he happen across this post), but for me at least I'm waiting for a return to form.
Stephenson went downhill... (Score:1, Interesting)
The first book by him that I read was Snow Crash. Pretty good book with lots of cool ideas. I really liked the idea of burbclaves but I thought that the rollerskates and skateboards were kind of stupid.
Then I checked out The Diamond Age. I loved it. The idea of the primer was really cool as was the world that he described. I must have read that book a dozen times at least and it is easily one of my top twenty favorite SF novels.
In the Beginning was the Command Line was a cool little book.
Unfortunately everything else that I have read by him has sucked. The guy just went off in directions that I have no interest in. He also really really needs an editor. His latest books could be, no should be, trimmed down to at least half their current size.
I might one day read the Baroque cycle... (Score:5, Interesting)
I admit that I haven't been following what's going on with Stephenson's writing plans, but it just seems to me that there were so many loose ends at the end of Cryptonomicon, all of them fertile ground for more work...
I don't even feel like I scratched the surface with this list.
Cheers,
Richard
Stephenson's endings (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the only Stephenson ending I like is from Jipi and the Paranoid Chip.
However, he can come up with great stories which I enjoy very much, despite the ending (which is not much of a letdown now, because the moment I start reading a Stephenson book I expect the ending to suck but it doesn't bother me).
Re:Stephenson went downhill... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course what you mean, is that he started writting about stuff that you dont care about. That is to say that his books do not nessesarily suck, just that you are not interested in them. This is a very different kind of statement.
I don't particularely like mystery novels (lets say). that doesn't mean that the whole genre of mystery sucks -- just that it doesn't appeal to me, personally. In fact, becuase i don't like the genre of mystery, i am even less qualified to make statements concerning the quality of any particulare mystery novel. I just don't have the knowlege of the subject, the exprience, nor love of the genre to make statements about them that would matter to those who would be interested in the book.
He also really really needs an editor. His latest books could be, no should be, trimmed down to at least half their current size.
Again, this is a personall prefference. You are saying that you do not like reading books that are that long-winded. Stephenson has just changed his writting style (really apparent starting with cryptonomicon). He is much more wordy now than he was earlier in his life. Is this inherintly a bad thing? Of course not. He is changing and maturing as a writter. As such, his style and genre is changing with him.
I don't really mean to pick on you here, it is just that all to often, i see people making absolute statements (ei. that movie sucks) when what they really mean to express is an opinion (ie. I didn't like that movie). It is just somewhat annoying. Espcially, when poeple don't seem to realize that they are just expressing an opinion.
How do i konw that what you stated was just an opinion? Well, for one I liked the book. And i know many people that like his barouque cycle so far. I also like the fact that Stephenson is changing. Personally, I don't really like reading the same type of thing all the time. that is one reason why i can't read anymore asimov, heinlien, anthony, ect. After a while all the books start to be the same old same old. Dispite the fact that i really enjoy the way the author expresses himeself.
I am simple delighted that I have found an author (stephenson) who changes. That way i can enjoy the expression that that author has, but not be bored to death by the same type of story all the time.
but then again, that is just my opinion :)
Re:Editor (Score:5, Interesting)
Books too Long
There is a Cult of Brevity that holds a certain amount of sway in the writing world. Some of its devotees are teachers (and students) in formal creative writing programs where the coin of the realm is short stories, or fragments thereof. Others are editors and journalists who, as a condition of their employment, must produce work of fixed length. Among people who follow the Cult of Brevity, the ability to write pieces that are not very long is thought to be the mark of the competent, well-trained, disciplined writer.
So you can imagine what such people think of people who write longer pieces, such as myself!
Many of the Cult of Brevity's more hard-core believers feel that writing long stuff is a sign of disgusting incontinence, egomania, pusillanimous editors, the decline of Western civilization, or all of the above. As must be obvious, I am not an adherent of the Cult of Brevity. Personally, I am delighted to read extremely long books, or series of books, as long as they hold my interest. To me it seems self-evident that the Cult of Brevity is grievously mistaken, and am not inclined to dispute it here.
At first, I agreed with him and then I started reading Quicksilver...
Stephenson's books end like a Kung-fu Movie. (Score:3, Interesting)
they roll credits.
Stephenson's endings are like that, after the story is resolved they just end with no post to wrap things up with the characters.
Re:I might one day read the Baroque cycle... (Score:3, Interesting)
Stephenson never ends a book, he just stops writing them.
I always end up turning the last page and being surprised that there's nothing else...
Watered steel blade (Score:3, Interesting)
ortho/paradoxy (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no contradiction in a rational mind researching alchemy and mysticism. Especially in the 1600-1700s, when science was built on a the techniques and pursuits of those prior investigative models. Four centuries from now, quantum mechanics will be indistinguishable from alchemy in "rationality", or whatever mental mode practiced by generators of new information about systems of events. It will either seem too deterministic, or clumsy guesswork, depending on future evolution of science. Newton applied his fine instruments to fuzzy material, both from his lab (and orchard