Quicksilver and Cryptonomicon
Mar. 11th, 2004 09:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Anyway, I was thinking about those stupid "what is science fiction/fantasy" definitional issues lately because I just finished being the last person on the continent to read Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver, which incidentally is probably his best novel since Zodiac (though it definitely suffers from First Part of a Gigantic Trilogy syndrome).
If you compare Cryptonomicon and Quicksilver to the books they obviously most resemble, Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow and Mason and Dixon respectively, the Pynchon books have more fantastic content than Stephenson's by a considerable margin, but it's also the Pynchon books that are more likely to end up on the "fiction/literature" shelves rather than "science fiction/fantasy". It's not worth getting outraged over, though, since these are primarily marketing categories (and the Pynchon does sometimes get shelved under science fiction!)
Actually I shouldn't be so certain about Cryptonomicon, since after two attempts I've never been able to get more than halfway through it. The World War II parts are great, but the parts set in the quasi-present day bore me to tears for some reason; I was reading in the wake of the tech-bubble crash and I think those parts already seemed painfully dated as a result. Maybe I should try rereading them as historical fiction.
If you compare Cryptonomicon and Quicksilver to the books they obviously most resemble, Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow and Mason and Dixon respectively, the Pynchon books have more fantastic content than Stephenson's by a considerable margin, but it's also the Pynchon books that are more likely to end up on the "fiction/literature" shelves rather than "science fiction/fantasy". It's not worth getting outraged over, though, since these are primarily marketing categories (and the Pynchon does sometimes get shelved under science fiction!)
Actually I shouldn't be so certain about Cryptonomicon, since after two attempts I've never been able to get more than halfway through it. The World War II parts are great, but the parts set in the quasi-present day bore me to tears for some reason; I was reading in the wake of the tech-bubble crash and I think those parts already seemed painfully dated as a result. Maybe I should try rereading them as historical fiction.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 09:08 am (UTC)With Quicksilver, however, I had a very hard time getting into the story. I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason for this (other then a distaste for the 17th century vernacular) is that I lack the background to appreciate the history. The "aha" moments, when I could recognize them, served to annoy rather than engage me. That and the character list that's a mile long... there was quite a bit of page flipping involved for me to remember the context for everyone. All in all, a frustrating read.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 02:45 pm (UTC)Stephenson's use of language was interesting-- he was basically writing in early 21st century English, with lots of goofy deliberate anachronisms, but with 17th century usages thrown in haphazardly for flavor. Pynchon went more the whole hog in Mason & Dixon, even capitalizing like an early-18th-century writer, but made his anachronisms all the wilder to compensate, throwing in references to things like Mr. Spock and Popeye the Sailor Man.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 09:42 am (UTC)I might try again, if someone can convince me it's actually worth it, only I lent my copy to a friend and he's saying he'll burn it if he ever finishes it, to save other people from having to read it.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 06:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 06:46 pm (UTC)I think it's misleading to speak of its style in the singular; the style jumps around a lot. The first time I thought the first roughly 1/4 was a much harder slog than the rest. The second time it didn't seem so much different. So I don't know. But there certainly are tough passages to slog through, funny ones that are a breeze, sections where he discusses things I'd on the whole rather not think about, yadda yadda yadda. Worth reading? I thought so. In some ways I liked it better the second time... in some ways I liked it less. I probably won't give it a third read for quite some time if ever.
In any case, anyone who'd take up two pages of a novel with that story about DeMille and his young fur-henchmen can't be all bad. (BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!)
Lot 49 is a fun read -- though apparently Pynchon himself thinks very little of it. Well, what does he know?
I've read V and Vineland but they didn't leave a big impression one way or the other. Somehow I missed even hearing about Mason and Dixon until now.
Gravity's Rainbow
Date: 2005-01-10 11:51 pm (UTC)Best regards,
Craig
http://www.control-z.com
no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 10:45 am (UTC)(I still remember how cool it was to work out that the IHOP the protagonist visits at that one point was the one that we went to from work all the time. And now I pass Polaroid on the way to work, as well, unamazingly.)
Must read Mason & Dixon also, and Pattern Recognition, and all that other stuff piled up next to my bed.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 06:01 pm (UTC)