Neal Stephenson's "Anathem" Due In September 248
Alexander Rose writes "Neal Stephenson's new novel, ANATHEM, germinated in 01999 when Danny Hillis asked him and several other contributors to sketch out their ideas of what the Millennium Clock might look like. Stephenson tossed off a quick sketch and promptly forgot about it. Five years later however, when he was between projects, the idea came back to him, and he began to explore the possibility of building a novel around it. ANATHEM is the result, and will be released on September 9th, 02008." Read Rose's complete posting for more information about the release of the book, which he describes as set "in a genre bending alt-future-retro world where mechani-punk technology meets space opera in a blend of the best of Snow Crash and the Baroque Cycle."
I don't know why.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Waiting for a review of the ending (Score:5, Interesting)
I read Cryptonomicon and Snow Crash and thought both were great, except for the endings. I thought the endings were rushed, as if he spent a years carefully writing each novel until his publisher suddenly showed up at his door and said "Dude, you've got 24 hours to finish this novel." I'm waiting for a specific review of the ending of this one before I decide whether to buy.
Re:The only question that really matters (Score:2, Interesting)
less is more (Score:5, Interesting)
I found out all I wanted to know from Amazon -- the book is 960 pages long. The guy still doesn't have an editor with the balls to say no. Until he finds one, I can't get too excited about a new Neal Stephenson novel.
Snow Crash was great. Cryptonomicon would have been great if he'd cut at least 300 pages of fluff. I didn't even bother with the Baroque books.
He's very self-indulgent as a writer.
Re:less is more (Score:4, Interesting)
Amen to that brother.
Though Stephenson is not as bad a Douglas Coupland putting about 10 pages of digits of pi in Jpod.
It seems a lot of modern writers do this sort of thing. IMHO it doesn't move the story along its literally filler. Ask them to write a tight, fast paced short story or novella and their minds would explode.
I think I might sponsor a new literary competition....
Re:Temporal sickness? (Score:2, Interesting)
Learning to Read the Existing Millennium Clock (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce Sterling (coined the term "cyberpunk" for associate William Gibson's SF style that he imitated) promoted the Millennium Clock (Clock of the Long Now, from the Long Now Foundation) on his "eco-future design revolution" Viridian movement [wikipedia.org] mailing list. We discussed it at length, but everyone missed the point.
The #1 design problem in a Millennium Clock is how to be sure that people 10,000 years from now (and along the way) will be able to "read" the clock, make sense of the clock's striking. Knowing that it's a "clock", knowing that it struck before at regular intervals, that it will strike again. "How to tell the time?" is a problem more for the uncontrolled people the clock is designed to signal, than it is for a clock that can at least theoretically be controlled from its beginnings across millennia.
Mechanical failures or 100% success is irrelevant if people as far in the future from now as we are from shortly after the end of the last Ice Age, twice as distant as the people whose ancient Egyptian and Sumerian writing is decipherable only by the most learned experts, can't recognize the clock enough that they know it's marking time.
So I proposed that we concentrate on that problem. After all, we've already got a giant, maintenance free, frictionless and durable clockwork flying around the sky every day. The Sun, Moon, Earth, planets and stars are all marking time every day. Their alignments at each year, century and millennium are evident to everyone on Earth, distinctive, and already "built". What we need to do to ensure our descendants can read any clock through the next 10,000 years is exactly the same task for inventing a mechanical clock we build and encode with time symbols, and for discovering how to use the existing "clock" (that humans have already used as timekeeper for our whole history).
Maybe we should indeed build some monuments pointing at the "clock". Maybe to indulge our current fetish for precision matter engineering in the service of information manipulation, we sould build precise models of the sky at each time the clock strikes. Maybe we should spread thousands of Volkswagen sized synthetic diamonds, into which glowing radioactive doped renderings of the sky at each "gong" are obvious to everyone. Perhaps with a "Rosetta Stone" embedded inside, showing how we presently represent those times at those gongs (eg. "00:00 January 1, 2000 AD") also embedded in there, the privilege of the builders. Perhaps we should launch satellites (redundant - 10,000 years is a long time, even in the near-vacuum of orbit), powered by solar panels, that laser down to some such markers, burning away debris that might cover them, but passing through the readable, transparent monument. Perhaps we should carve the sequence of images into a circle on the face of the Moon, so anyone can glance up and compare the century/millennia arrangements in the Lunar pictures to the sky framing it.
But building a clock that can be stolen, lost or broken, and which could easily become an unreadable enigma even if still available and moving in 10,000 years, is a distraction. In fact, our obsession with building that clock, rather than learning how to communicate with our distant descendants, shows just how important such a project is to its real goal: changing our naive approaches to longterm thinking. The failure of Version 1 of this Millennium Clock is a perfect expression of why we need to learn to devise a clock that succeeds.
We missed the 2000 AD launch of a clock that people will recognize striking in 12,000 AD (or whatever they call it then). Lucky for us, we have 992 years to figure out how to do it right before the next deadline for what could become its first consecutive strike, that 10 millennia hence people will still know was a "clock" that started "now".
ISO 8601 (Score:4, Interesting)