[MoP]

That's one of Stepehnson's main failings...he doesn't generally have a nice tight direction for his books. There is definitely a bit of 'how can I get my fictional characters to be involved in as many of the historical events of the time' in The Baroque Cycle. But I get round that because I just love the way he writes. Plus, sticking with it does provide a payoff imo. That said, I can understand why some people may not like the work...that's cool, after all if we were all the same it would be a boring world.

[Yellow]

 Yellow, on Aug 12 2005, 09:05 PM, said:

Yeah it was just too boring. And Duiker, it's one thing to weave a rich, intricate tapestry, it's quite another to bore the reader to death in the process. And seriously mate, it may be the second-most-important-character-in-the-trilogy, but does that mean that I should read the whole trilogy? On the contrary, if I don't like this character, then I'm probably not going to like the rest of the trilogy. Yes, I knew before I picked it up that it was a trilogy. What I didn't know, unfortunately, was that I wasn't going to enjoy reading it.

And you know what? I completely missed that big sign on the front of the book that said "If you haven't read Cryptonomicon, you won't like this book". With hindsight, I could have saved myself the time.

Well, I've almost completely turned around in my position on this one... I did go back and have another go at Quicksilver, and while I still think that Jack Shaftoe's story in Quicksilver was crap, the book was saved by the last third of the book cutting between the three POVs fairly quickly (plus, Eliza is brilliant). This is in contrast to the first two thirds, which were told in two large chunks, only one of which I enjoyed reading.

Anyway, I read Crypto and loved the damn thing, even though I put it down for six months half way through (Stephenson's books are dense, and it's difficult to tell what the plot is until you've almost finished the book). I then went back and read Quicksilver and The Confusion, and... now I'm hooked. I'm a little under 100 pages into The System of the World and loving every second of it, even though nothing has actually happened yet (but it's a Waterhouse section, which is to my liking).

So, yeah. It's a bloody long book, and it'll take me months to read, but that's cool. I enjoy Stephenson a lot more than the other stuff I've read recently (including The Blade Itself and a couple of 40k books which I read as a wind-down after The Confusion and were pretty tatty tbh)... and I now have Anathem waiting for me on my bookshelf, which is another monster tome

Can't believe I started reading Quicksilver over three years ago. Where does time go?

Anyway, despite all my posts above, I do recommend this series to people with the time available to devote to it. And if you're a scientist of any description, or simply interested in the history of science (or, hell, just the history of 17th century Europe)... it's probably a must-read.

This post has been edited by Yellow: 05 February 2009 - 07:00 PM

[ch'arlz]

 Yellow, on Feb 5 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

(Stephenson's books are dense, and it's difficult to tell what the plot is until you've almost finished the book).

I know and understand that each of us has different tastes, but I still have difficulty imagining the mind that appreciates SE but not Stephenson.

[Yellow]

I find them to be radically different, myself.

Erikson's sprawling landscape comes from a seeming wilfulness for the obtuse, whereas Stephenson meanders simply because he enjoys smelling the roses.

By which I suppose I'm saying that if you don't get what Erikson's story is about, it's because he doesn't want you to know, whereas with Stephenson it's because he hasn't got around to telling you yet.

[ch'arlz]

 Yellow, on Feb 5 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

Erikson's sprawling landscape comes from a seeming wilfulness for the obtuse, whereas Stephenson meanders simply because he enjoys smelling the roses.

Yeah but...
They both indulge themselves in language and plot and all the writerly stuff I wish I could do and deeply envy them for their abilities. I also wish I could play the cello, too.

[stone monkey]

Qucksilver is a bit of a trial. Realistically, the only way to approch the book is as a kind of primer for what Stephenson's going to do with the rest of the series. The Confusion, on the other hand, is flat-out brilliant. I'm not sure that the payoffs in The System of The World are worth the build up in the other two. I think it's a great book, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure that it's the book I wanted.

[Sixty]

I've read Anathem and found the lack of mindless violence boring.

Guess I'm just a little too shallow of a reader - the philosophy/theories and all are nice to read, but I'd read an academic journal if I was really all that interested...

[ch'arlz]

 stone monkey, on Feb 5 2009, 03:35 PM, said:

I'm not sure that the payoffs in The System of The World are worth the build up in the other two. I think it's a great book, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure that it's the book I wanted.

What the heck did you think you wanted???

[stone monkey]

Hmmm... Good question. I think, probably, what I wanted was more of The Confusion, only turned up to 12...(The Confusion itself was turned up to 11, if you ask me, and all the more fun for it)

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 05 February 2009 - 09:57 PM

[Yellow]

Meh, I think the Confusion was basically a near-seamless extension of Quicksilver, but better choreographed. Essentially all three are the same book, from what I can tell.

Avast!

This post has been edited by Yellow: 05 February 2009 - 10:29 PM

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I loved Crypto, one of my favorite books ever. The Baroque Cycle is good, but looooong. I enjoyed it, and considered it time well spent, but I do recognize the complaint that the payoff is not what I was expecting. I've seen the original manuscript for the entire series, it's freaking huge.

[ch'arlz]

 stone monkey, on Feb 5 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

Hmmm... Good question. I think, probably, what I wanted was more of The Confusion, only turned up to 12...

I don't understand: "turned up to 12" on a scale of what?

[Yellow]

10.

[stone monkey]

Yup. A scale of ten...

Jeez, you make just one vague Spinal Tap reference and you start to lose people. What is the world coming to?

[ch'arlz]

 stone monkey, on Feb 6 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

Jeez, you make just one vague Spinal Tap reference and you start to lose people. What is the world coming to?

Yup, it's a vague reference and some of us (me, specifically), while meaning to get around to it, haven't seen Spinal Tap. What is the world coming to?

This post has been edited by ch'arlz: 06 February 2009 - 08:34 PM

[stone monkey]

Sorry. That was supposed to come off as a dig at myself for making unwarranted assumptions. But it obviously didn't play that way. I do apologise.

Four sentences, two apologies... I'm really getting very British here, aren't I?

[Yellow]

Would you like some jam with your backtracking?

[Fist Gamet]

Perusing amazon for new reads...am I right in thinking Cryptonomicon is the place to start with Stephenson?

Second question: where is the best place to start with Neal Asher? (Related and saves starting another thread)

Cheers

[teholbeddict]

 Fist Gamet, on May 14 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

Perusing amazon for new reads...am I right in thinking Cryptonomicon is the place to start with Stephenson?

Second question: where is the best place to start with Neal Asher? (Related and saves starting another thread)

Cheers

I would start with the Baroque cycle trilogy and then go on to Crytonomicon. You can read Crytonomicon without having read the Baroque tilogy first, but there are a few cross overs you may miss, not a big deal really. I liked crytonomicon but presonally I found the Baroque Cycle far more enjoyable. If you are looking for a good stand alone by Stephenson you could always try his new one Anathem. I though it was really good although again not quite on par withthe Baroque Cycle. Anathem would be a good test of whether or not you will enjoy his writing style though.

This post has been edited by teholbeddict: 14 May 2009 - 09:50 PM