Neal Stephenson's The Confusion Released 254
Jon Lasser writes "Neal Stephenson's 'The Confusion', second volume of his Baroque Cycle is released today. I received an advance copy and have a book review up here. The hypertext site for the trilogy is here. The short review: if you liked 'Quicksilver', this one is better; if you didn't, don't bother."
Confusion (Score:4, Funny)
CVsb
Re:Confusion (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Confusion (Score:2, Funny)
CB
Re:Confusion (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Confusion (Score:2)
He explicitly writes"
"Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:5, Insightful)
thats probably just me.
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:2)
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost all of book two, where Shaftoe makes an entry, is really good so far. I like Stephenson's way of telling a story. He is good at describing the dynamics of inter-personal relationships and he uses a geeky sort of language that is really funny.
When there's a story to be told, Neal Stephenson is a great writer, when not, you just want to kick him real hard. (Still he is not as bad as le'Carre, who has a nasty habit of drowning good plots in the kind of drawn out, mediocre, masturbatory adjective-slinging, twaddle that my teachers were so fond of.
Still, Quicksilver was seems worth reading now that I'm a bit over half way through, and I have already ordered "The Confusion".
I just hope that the Baroque Cycle has an ending so, like "The young lady's primer", it doesn't just come to a screeching halt like a bad B-movie run out of money.
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the tech is explained the story starts to move faster. It is as if the story is passing through Stephenson's mind faster and he isn't able to type fast enough to keep up. So as it accelerates the details that make it to the page are more and more sparse until there are no details or explainations left. That is when the book is over, since there is nothing to print on the next page as the pace of the book approaches infinity and he simply can type anything.
Quicksilver seems to break the mold. It doesn't get faster and in fact just gets harder and harder to read. The pace at which I could read it got slower and slower until I was unable to read any more of it. I stopped (well, the velocity of my reading reached zero) about 300 pages from the end. This from a person that read Cryptonomicon in two sittings.
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:3, Funny)
Please tell me you're being ironical here...
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:3, Informative)
Also, the point I originally wanted to make is that it helps if you read quickly. They put me (and a couple of the other GATE students) in front of a speed reading ma
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:5, Insightful)
The Baroque Cycle seems more like Neal exploring his own niche interests. Alchemy, the history of modern banking, etc. Makes think Neal might have been poking fun at himself with his choice of The Baroque [m-w.com] Cycle as the trilogy title.
Anyway, though not as immediately accessable as Cryptonomicon, it is a fascinating pleasure to experience a writer of Mr. Stephenson's caliber and style work through his own exploration of things that are: Go Neal. And thanks again!
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:2, Interesting)
It was destined to become a hit among twenty-something geeks who live in Silicon Valley and have no life outside of their job. As a twenty-something geek living in Austin with a rich life, I found it to be agonizingly badly written.
You don't need to explain linux, or PGP, to a geek. You certainly don't need to put thirty pages of exposition about linux where thirty pages of sto
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:2)
NYT Bestsellers appeal to more than 20-somethings (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering how many people bought this book, your argument about who it appeals to holds as little water as your arguements about the writing. Sorry you didn't enjoy it; Clearly it was NOT written for 20-something geeks or he wouldn't have put in the exposition you found so painful. I don't know shit about Linux and found the whole book to be a fascinating techno-thriller on on
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:4, Informative)
Quicksilver is awful considering I'm a non-native English speaker. I had to look up almost every other word. It is no fun reading it that way. I wasn't even able to finish the first chapter.
I finished Quicksilver (Score:2)
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:2)
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a light read. It helps to google some of the personalities to know who he's writing about.
I loved Quicksilver. I was just thinking that the next book won't be out for a while (Neal seems to write slowly). This made my day!
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver (Score:2)
I hated Quicksilver. Dull, dull, dull!
Stephen King usurped! (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe it was a Kill Bill style 'why not make them buy it three times?' marketing move.
Re:Stephen King usurped! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stephen King usurped! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stephen King usurped! (Score:2, Interesting)
Amen to that. I once was quoted as saying Robert Jordan was the best modern fantasy writer in my humble opinion, but I have to say that the last installment of the Wheel of Time series was the first 500+ page book I'd read in which absolutely nothing happened. After I got done with it, I had to acknowledge that there was no plot continuance in the entire book. Everyone stayed where they were doing what they'd been doing in th
Opportunity for profit (Score:5, Funny)
- Write a book titled "Stephenson".
- The book cover should say in big letters:
Cowboy
Neal
Stephenson
- Cash in on people who think this is "Cowboy" from Neal Stephenson.
Re:Opportunity for profit (Score:2)
Negativland
Re:Opportunity for profit (Score:2)
book reviews, not links to book reviews (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot has a lot of interesting readers who, because they aren't tied up in the mostly non-functional reviewing world, can contribute interesting takes on whatever's come out. Online and off, most of the book reviews are either LCD "here is a book about stuff neither of us understand", or unmitigated love-ins where authors review each other in a mutual backscratch.
I would hate to see people stop writing reviews for first post on slashdot, and I would hate to see slashdot stop supporting its own review culture.
Re:book reviews, not links to book reviews (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of the ways publishers maintain a lock on intellectual culture. The last time I reviewed a book (in a small, but influential journal), I walked into my local university bookstore and lots of hell broke loose. I got plenty of compliments as well, but it was interesting to note that the same people who frowned at me for criticising their friend were also in control of either t
Re:book reviews, not links to book reviews (Score:2, Interesting)
> I'd much rather wait a week (or more) for a long-form, considered and balanced review
>
Well, speaking as a former book store employee and a lifelong book-lover, I agree.
However, the story here (as I submitted it, too!) is that the book is on shelves today. I fully expect original reviews to be posted over the next few days -- but how will folks know to go get the book if we don't tell 'em it's for sale?
>
> Slashdot has a great thing going with their book reviews..
>
Again, I agr
trilogy and endings (Score:5, Funny)
Steven V.
Re:trilogy and endings (Score:2)
Then, it suddenly ended, and left me scratching my head totally. I actually checked to make sure I wasn't missing another chapter or something...
Then I was totally embarrased, because I had already recommended the book to several friends. I was hoping they'd forget I mentioned it.
Not that that kept me from getting Cryptonomicon. I work at a security company, I think I p
I like Stephenson, BUT (Score:5, Insightful)
And the endings... they're usually so awful that I can almost feel the author cringing as he types. Its like he runs out of steam and then can't figure out an ending, so he says "oh, the diesel fuel burns and melts the gold". Its a total surrender to laziness.
Maybe if he cut out the description of dive tables he could muster up the energy for a good ending.
Re:I like Stephenson, BUT (Score:2)
Granted, Snowcrash was not a groundbreaking work like Dune, but it was fun and exciting diversion. It was entertainment. Not bad! It's worth 7 bucks or whatever the soft cover costs.
On the other hand, there is too much crap in his other books and way too much mundane trivialities and silly descriptions of irrelevant things.
The problem with Stephenson is male-female dialog (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The problem with Stephenson is male-female dial (Score:2)
They are OK, I think, but not great. For the absolute best I've come across in alternate present novels, check out Pavane [pipex.com] by Keith Roberts, who sadly died in 2000.
Re:The problem with Stephenson is male-female dial (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, he writes geeks talking to hot girls...of COURSE the conversations sound contrived!
Re:The problem with Stephenson is male-female dial (Score:5, Funny)
it's even worse when they're not talking (Score:2)
Re:it's even worse when they're not talking (Score:2)
Have you ever been madly in love with someone who is kept from you by circumstance? That first encounter ain't usually the stuff dreams are made of - I have seen a good facimile of America Shaftoe's bemused smile from my wife after a nekkid ending to a long seperation.
Love ain't porn.
Suprised.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Confusion ? (Score:3, Funny)
Intro to Neal (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen a number of posters commenting on the weightiness of Cryptonomicon and Quicksilver (which I have yet to read).
If you are not familiar with Stephenson and want a brief introduction, I recommend Zodiac. It's a quick, entertaining page-turner that can be read in one sitting but still gives you a pretty good feel for his writing.
Sort of like Neal Stephenson Lite
The Dalai Llama
... absolutely loved Interface and didn't find out Stephenson wrote it until a month ago on /. ...
Re:Intro to Neal (Score:2)
I recommend Zodiac.
Zodiac (subtitled The Ecothriller) is still my favorite Stephenson, suitable for numerous rereadings. It's fun, downright silly, at times, and has a loveably obnoxious main character.
ObTopic: I liked Quicksilver a lot, too, and I should have The Confusion on Thursday. Very Pynchonesque (in the Mason & Dixon sense).
No no no. (Score:2)
Visit Neal Stephenson on the web at: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Visit Neal Stephenson on the web at: (Score:2)
I'm one of the Metaweb administrators; I am also a Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] administrator. The two sites run the same software - Mediawiki - but have different goals.
For a summary of the differences, see the Metaweb vs Wikipedia FAQ [metaweb.com]
The Metaweb currently has extensive annotations on Quicksilver, many written by Neal, but also many contributed by readers. I hope that any Slashdot readers who are interested in The Confusion and wo
Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward spi (Score:5, Insightful)
Quicksilver, honestly, was a burden to read. The story had its moments, but when you're 700 pages into a book and have little or no idea where it's going and little or no motivation to keep reading, I submit that the author has basically failed. I frequently felt like the author was writing just to "hear himself type." I'll probably read The Confusion just because I hate to leave thing unfinished, but if it's similarly burdensome, I think I'll just have to give up on Stephenson altogether.
To the commenter who asked why Stephenson features gay characters and their homosexuality so prominently, all I can tell you is that Turing was, in fact, gay, and it was a major issue for him and for the people who worked around him. It's not surprising to me that any story on cryptography would feature Turing and his homosexuality. I can't say as much about Newton simply because I'm only familiar with the history of his work rather than the history of the man.
Who ever said Stephenson needs an editor is right on. Quicksilver is a 300 or 400 page story told in 900 pages. Keeping the length down would do a great service towards making the thing more interesting and readable. But somehow I suspect that neither of these issues are high on Stephenson's list.
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, Quicksilver was written with a pen and paper.
Maybe it's an ink company conspiracy.
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward (Score:2)
The lumber cartel strikes again :-)
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the length, if an editor had cut 300 pages from Cryptonomicon, it would have completely castrated the story. Quicksilver's about twice as long as it needs to be, but if forcing myself through 900 pages of Quicksilver is the price I have to pay for an intact Cryptonomicon, then so be it.
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward (Score:2)
I think that for a work that large you really do need to work on making the story more satisfying at the points along the way too
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward (Score:4, Interesting)
I can see a few options for this.
1. Being the ubergeek of his time, he simply couldn't get laid.
2. He was lying.
3. He was confused as to what 'virgin' meant.
4. He was gay.
Now, I should mention that, for #4 to hold true, he'd either have had to not act on his impulses, or to have defined sex as being between a man and a woman. I think the latter's probably quite likely.
So depicting Newton as gay, while potentially controversial, isn't entirely improbable.
Re:Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, & the downward (Score:3, Informative)
Just don't read Snowcrash (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do people like stuff like Cryptonomicon? I've read a hundred pages or so and I just couldn't take it. What's so exciting about Shaftoe? Who cares about riding on a ship? War? There is no action, no insight, no perspective, no intrigue, nothing. I mean, it's like pages and pages of nothing and nothing and nothing. Nothing happens. Characters are boring, average, shallow and do not do anything interesting. I mean, why don't I just put a web cam on a bus stop? Because it would be about as insightful and as exciting as any of Stephenson's books. I don't understand.
What is exciting about these books? Is there some depth that I don't see? It's no Dune, that's for sure. Stephenson has no spiritual insight. So what is it?
Even reading highly modded up posts here just blows me away!! Some guy read 300 pages that he thought were mediocre in order to get to the good parts!?!? You guys are crazy? Are you sure you're not reading the book because "Neal is cool" in the nerd culture? How can anyone stomach 300 pages of mundane mediocrity to get to the "good parts" later? I don't understand. I mean, even Neal's fans think he sucks. It's in plain sight here on Slashdot.
I don't get it.
Re:Just don't read Snowcrash (Score:4, Insightful)
2 words: Giant Lizard.
I don't get it.
I know
Re:Just don't read Snowcrash (Score:2)
Hell, I'm halfway through my second go on the book.
Re:Just don't read Snowcrash (Score:3, Insightful)
> Why do people like stuff like Cryptonomicon? I've read a hundred pages or so and I just couldn't take it.
>
Because he gets so much of it *right*, and he "wastes" all that on the background. Research that some writers would do for a non-fiction book or article, Stephenson just hoses around his novels for effect, for atmosphere, and for authenticity. It's the sheer profligacy that brings such a stupid grin to my face.
I read _Cryptonomicon_ when it came out, and I liked it...but I wondered a
Re:Just don't read Snowcrash (Score:2)
Really, I wish Frank could be resurrected so he could finish Dune. And don't even try to tell me about the Frank-wannabe impostors.
I also really liked Fire in the Deep and many other Sci Fi classics. They are classics for a good reason of course. But, it seems like many think Neal is classic, and this is what boggles my mind.
Ho hum. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll have to chime in as well, since I just finished Quicksilver myself.
Christ, what a tedious read. It was one of the worst Xmas presents I ever received. (Yeah, it took me this long to slog through it.)
I got the feeling throughout the whole book that Stephenson was writing to impress himself. The interesting moments and plot points were drowned out by relentless pedantry. (Quick, raise your hand if you finished the book, and you really wanted to get Daniel Waterhouse off that damned ship for the first
Book needs an editor? Wait for the book-on-tape (Score:2, Insightful)
Neal shot his wad on Quicksilver (Score:2)
Neal, fire your editor.
Stepheson is an EMACS user? (Score:2, Interesting)
- excerpt from an Amazon.com interview with Neal Stephenson available here. [amazon.com]
"for instance, there might be one person who gets the job of looking after EMACS"
Neal, Neal, Neal.. vi buddy, trust us.
0h
Metaweb (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Metaweb (Score:2, Funny)
Information (Score:3, Insightful)
Specific Quicksilver flaws (Score:4, Interesting)
Most importantly, the Enoch Root character introduced in Cryptonomicon is now the unifying factor of the Baroque Cycle. Whereas in just one book he could be accepted as a spooky, mysterious character, giving him a blatantly immortal lifespan moves the book more towards fantasy and away from semi-educational speculative history. (The fantastical parts of Crytponomicon, like the vowel-free isle of Qwflgm and the invention of the digital computer in Austrailia, were some of its weaknesses)
Retelling the same story in a different era is a sign that an author is out of good ideas. (But hey, Ken Follett retells [amazon.com] the same [amazon.com] story [amazon.com] on the exact same date, and readers keep buying it)
But unfortunately, the two protagonists (Waterhouse and Shaftoe) are both willfully disconnected from the mainstream of society, and no supporting characters pop up to expound on backdrop factoids.
I can't wait to read The Confusion (Score:3, Interesting)
Many posters here have complained about Stephenson's prose: too much detail, not enough character development, and so on. I disagree with all of them. With Stephenson, you get scientific, historical, and technical knowledge along with characters that will grow on you if you let them. I think that by spending so many pages on information, he gives the characters a foundation in their environment. They have a depth that they would lack without the benefit of their surroundings, which are best explained the way he does it.
Another thing I love about his books, but especially Quicksilver, is the mixture of fictional characters and real people. The political intrigue of England in the 1680s was fascinating to me, as I'm a big fan of English history. I knew little about the people of that era before I read the book, but now I've sought out other materials on the time period and I'm looking forward to learning more. I've been to London several times, and I enjoyed picturing the city as it looked 320 years ago.
I do agree with those who say that his recent books have been too long, but not with their reasons. I take the subway to work, and I like to read to pass the time. Lugging Quicksilver back and forth to work for two months wasn't much fun. If he'd published the trilogy as a series of 300-page books instead, I'd be happier. But I'll gladly put up with the extra weight to enjoy Stephenson's writings again. You can only read a book for the first time once.
Released TODAY? (Score:3, Informative)
Why Neal Stephenson counts (Score:3, Insightful)
He's made a transition from scifi to fiction, but carried the tech along with it. 50 years from now, there's only going to be a few authors from this genre (scifi) that will still be read, and I believe that Stephenson will be one of those. He can tell a story, when he gets down to it. Why do people still read Phillip K. Dick? Why are there now movies being made from his stories? Because he can tell a story, in the end. Why is Stephenson still being posted here? Because his stories are good. He might get a bit bogged down in the details, but he's a great storyteller and that's why I'll start 'The Confusion' tomorrow and I can't wait for the 3rd part of trilogy. He's had some time to develop his skill, I'm guessing that the entire trilogy and 'Cryptonomicon' taken as a whole, will tell an entirely diffent story, taken altogether.
Just my thoughts...
Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver (Score:2)
When I got Cryptonomicon, I put off reading that until I had a 15 hour flight. I got through the bulk of it in the 30 hour round trip.
Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver (Score:5, Informative)
I took Quicksilver on a 12-hour flight, and at hour 4 I was fervently praying for it to alchemize into a different book.
One the way back I bought three Terry Pratchetts in the airport instead.
Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver (Score:2)
Re:Still haven't finished Quicksilver (Score:2)
I loved Snowcrash.
I just finished Cryptonomicon the other day and if I ever have to read one more page about Randy's prostate again.... Less specifically, the 1100 pages of Crypto were about 500 more than was justified for the actual plot. Great story, otherwise.
Quicksilver, and a signed copy at that, will be started soon. I really hope it's better than what's being described here.
Re:Im must be out of the loop (Score:2, Insightful)
The Neal Stephenson mini-HOWTO (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Newton was not homosexual (Score:4, Insightful)
By the same token -- the careful consideration of historical evidence -- I must *disagree* with your statement about Shakespeare. William Shakespeare was almost certainly bisexual with a strong preference toward women. Consider that several of his sonnets are dedicated to a "Mr. W.H." and that his plays are rife with suggestive comments that, even if they give no information about the playwrite's sexuality, certainly suggest a familiarity with, and acceptance of, the idea of affection and sex between two males.
You and I agree that the homosexual lobby tends to paint history pink, using great strokes of its broad brush to imply that everyone from Alexander the Great to J. Edgar Hoover was a mincing namby-pamby. You and I agree that they often arrive at incorrect conclusions -- the simple fact is that most people always have been and always will be straight, irrespective of how "politically correct" that notion is.
As much as I agree with you, I still take exception to your post because you sound like an ignorant homophobe. You seem fixated on the belief that incorrectly identifying a historical figure as homosexual somehow is some sort of smear on his reputation. To me, that suggests some very narrow thinking on your part.
I am white, with Aryan features. If someone walked up to me on the street and called me a nigger, I would certainly laugh due to their making an obvious factual error -- but I would not be ashamed. My reputation would not be destroyed. For me, there is no shame associated with being gay or black or Communist or vegetarian. If you think differently, then I suggest you reevaluate your thinking.
Re:Newton was not homosexual (Score:2)
Why mention it at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called fleshing out a character (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's called fleshing out a character (Score:2)
Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality (Score:5, Informative)
If that isn't a creepy tragedy that inspires sympathy (and also a fascinating story), I don't know what is. Scientist saves country, is slightly off-beat, is forced into suicidal depression by same government because of said off-beatness.
Meanwhile, if you want to watch persecuted Christian characters, why not go with the other fifty million people and watch Mel Gibson's film?
Re:Turing -- persecuted because of his sexuality (Score:2)
Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver (Score:5, Interesting)
Compared to speculations about Newton's sexuality (which are limited to a few vague hints scattered throughout the book), Waterhouse's faith virtually drives the plot. His mentor is a bishop who believes that the established church is heresy -- that one should be free to worship as he sees fit, unhampered by politics. Many of Waterhouse's misadventures are due to his similar beliefs. Most characters in Quicksilver are devout Christians, even some of the homosexuals (viz Leibniz).
If you read Stephenson's earlier work, you'll see a repeated theme of tolerant, unperturbed spirituality in his stronger characters. Juanita from Snow Crash is a devout Catholic -- she shuns organized religion because she believes most of it is politicized claptrap designed to control the masses -- but she is Christian nonetheless. She and her unswerving faith ultimately play a principal role in the book.
If Stephenson goes out of his way to illustrate Turing's homosexuality, or Newton's probable bisexuality, it is merely to shed more light on areas of human experience that have been ignored by history.
For 2,000 years, Christians have had a rich mythology that teaches them valuable lessons on life and gives them a slew of inspiring role-models. For 1,500 years, Christianity has been the accepted "normal" religion throughout most of the developed world; often it is even sanctioned as the state religion. Until very recently, Christians have been constantly reinforced by unanimous, positive feedback from the community, the state and the church that yes, they are good and right and are going to Heaven.
In the same time period, homosexuals have had little or no public acknowledgement of their existence: no role models, and certainly no acceptance from society. In several places and times during the past thousand years, homosexuals have been tormented, imprisoned, tortured and murdered merely for being who they are. Christians had to endure this suffering at first, but by the time of the Spanish Inquisition it was Christians doing the burning and torturing.
I live in southern California, in a city whose populace largely identify themselves as liberals. Just the same, not 18 months ago, a gay man in my neighborhood was doused in gasoline burned alive as he slept by a Catholic man who had befriended my neighbor before discovering his sexuality. Bigotry, hate and intolerance toward homosexuals are very much alive today, and much of it comes from people who call themselves "good" Christians.
In summary: if Stephenson chooses to showcase homosexuality slightly more than Christianity, perhaps he's merely acknowledging the fact that Christianity has already been showcased enough.
Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver (Score:2)
Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver (Score:4, Interesting)
"I realize that my views are probably in the minority here, but techno-fiction appeals to more than just liberal readers, and I wish Stephenson would realize that."
Funny. I'd have thought Stephenson would have annoyed more liberals than conservatives with this passage from Chapter 65:
To translate it into UNIX system administration terms (Randy's fundamental metaphor for just about everything), the post-modern, politically correct atheists were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz, society) with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because they were at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they saw as the norm. Whereas people who were wired into a church were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not understand everything, at least had some documentation, some FAQs and How-tos and README files, providing some guidance on what to do when things got out of whack. They were, in other words, capable of displaying adaptability.
One would think he is pushing his own brand of Church philosophy here. Or is he merely putting himself in the shoes of Randy Waterhouse?
Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver (Score:5, Interesting)
To say that Stephenson "advertises" for homosexuality is a gross mischaracterization. Turing was, in fact, a homosexual, a fact which turned the life of this brilliant man (the man who contributed more to the defeat of the Nazis than any other individual), into a sorrowful tragedy for which the British government ought to be eternally ashamed of itself. Alan Turing was a Hero. He was also gay.
And since you say that Stephenson doesn't pay similar attention to Christian characters, I guess you didn't actually *read* Quicksilver, did you? If you had, you would of course know that the central character (Daniel Waterhouse) was not only a Christian, his religion (and that of his family) plays a central role in the events of the book. Not that an author has any obligation to you or anyone else to maintain some kind of ridiculous "equal time" balance in the sociopolitical aspects of its characters.
And what does being liberal or conservative have to do with one's ability to accept a homosexual character in a novel? I doubt that all conservatives are as ignorant and intolerant as you are. I find it totally absurd that you regard the presence of a homosexual character as a "political" statement.
Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver (Score:4, Informative)
BEWARE
Both books feature sympathetic and heroic characters (Isaac Newton and Alan Turing) that are homosexuals (although I think Stephenson is speculating about Newton.) However, their homosexuality has nothing to do with the story. Why mention it at all?
Instead, Stephenson goes out of his way to talk about it, especially in the case of Turing. If Stephenson doesn't have a personal issue with "gay" people, fine, but he doesn't have to turn his books into an advertisement for homosexuality. I notice that he doesn't lavish similar praise and attention on Christian characters.
Turing makes a pass at a character, and then has a fight with his ex. That's pretty much all I remember about his sex life.
Newton is girly, and teased a young boy for being girly, and then its assumed (wrongly) that his best friend and concerned roomate was his lover, and he has secret meetings with this other gay character.
The book is, what, 800, 900 pages long?
Yeah...that was such an advertisement for homosexuality! Sheesh...
You didn't like it because you want homo characters to be either not in there at all, or punished for their sins. Fine, let the rest of us read books and not care about wether some character is gay or not.
P.S. Whatever you do, don't read American Gods by Neil Gaiman.
Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver (Score:2)
Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver (Score:2)
I like my beer cold, my TV loud and my homosexuals FLAMING!
Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver (Score:5, Funny)
And I totally agree on how his books overdo the sexuality politics. I mean do you know how much effort was wasted pushing the heterosexual agenda in Cryptonomicon? Page after page of "Randy" getting worked up over some chick in a wetsuit. And that WAY too descriptive het-sex in the car scene. Imperial Pint?!? YUCK! Too much information!
I sure as hell don't want to have to think too hard about why they do stuff. Just hurry up and get to the good parts where they wire routers and blow stuff up.
Pant...pant...pant... (Score:2)
Re:Why I didn't like Cryptonomicon or Quicksilver (Score:5, Funny)
Re:did Quicksilver have a plot? (Score:2, Insightful)
Obligatory Gentoo plug (Score:2)
Re:Probably won't read it (Score:2)
Speaking of digressions and asides....House of Leaves [amazon.com].
The Dalai Llama
...this post is an aside... but I digress...