Salon Interviews Neal Stephenson 256
edibleplastic writes "Salon has a great interview with Neal Stephenson, author of such science fiction favorites as Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, and Quicksilver. He discusses his views on the scientific community (both past and present), the world of science fiction, and writing in general. "I think there are common threads between writing and programming... All I'm saying is that the thing you're making -- the novel or the computer program -- has got a very complicated and finely wrought hierarchical structure to it. The structure has to work right or the whole thing fails. But the only way you can work on it is by hitting one character at a time...""
Neal Stephenson... (Score:5, Informative)
Now that the fawning and praise and adoration is out of the way... He did an interesting essay a while back called In the Beginning was the Command Line [stud.ntnu.no]. It's a good read.
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:3, Interesting)
but that may just be because i'm burned out on microsoft-weilding zaibatsu's building and using technology which a) yes, of course is feasible, but b) ain't here yet. god, do we need -another- 'advanced' computing metaphor story here people? i don't freakin' think so. booo-oring.
give me the dissentry of the 17th century over snowcrashin' in the 21st century, any day.
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:2)
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:2)
I can recommend Kil'n People by David Brin, though...
If Cryptonomicon was "Good" (Score:2, Funny)
Cryptonomicon was the first (and so far only) Stephenson book I've tried and I just found it to bad to be able to read. It seem like ever other page had either a metaphor or simile that was borrowed from one of those deliberately bad writing contest.
It's been a few years, but I remember a few of them like:
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:2)
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, the guy was describing the sound of a pipe organ for two pages. And this heightened sensitivity to emotional states caused his characters to quickly became charicatures of themselves. It's the literary equivalent of a nerdy kid who won't shut up about how smart he is. Look at this metaphor! Isn't it clever! Look how the sound of the pipe organ drives my savant character into mathematics! Look, the churl doesn't even understand homosexuality!
We get it, man! Calm down and write your book.
Maybe I'm too much of an English major, here, but symbolism only works if it's organic and adjectives shouldn't be applied with a brick. How about a little subtlty -- shit, even Gibson treats his flashy, negative future with a more gentle hand.
Of course, maybe I just didn't like it.
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:3, Interesting)
He just needs a good editor. I mean, the two or three pages he spent describing how to eat the perfect bowl of Captain Crunch really wasn't necessary and didn't add much.
I loved Snow Crash though.
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't even start Quicksilver, then.
Halfway through Cryptonomicon, I thought is was one of the best books I'd read. I didn't feel that way by the end, for other reasons.
The entire time I was reading Quicksilver, I thought "edit, edit, edit".
The book should have been about half as long, and nothing would have been lost.
(there are some good parts in Quicksilver, but the majority is fluff.)
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:5, Insightful)
And, did you READ those two pages? I did, and I not only learned quite a bit, but I found myself wanting to learn more!
I hate reading this kind of thing because it reminds me that we're now in the anti-erudite phase of American history. This happens periodically in most societies, and it's not surprising, but that doesn't mean I'm not saddened by it. Was a time that a guy writing a book, and spending two well-researched pages on a topic as obscure as how a pipe organ works would be welcomed and enjoyed for what it is, but now we have to slap the guy down for -- and I'm not making this up, it's a quote from the OP -- being "the literary equivalent of a nerdy kid who won't shut up about how smart he is."
It's not like Stephenson says, "hey, I'm smart, wanna see? huh? huh? huh?" No, he just writes about a wide range of technical and social issues, layering them with the fruits of his research.
Now, you want to talk about structure, we can get into that. I think his structure sucks, especially his endings. But, I put up with that because a) he has great ideas b) his characters react to those great ideas in interesting ways and c) I come out of one of his books knowing more, and having thought more about what I did know, than I did going in. Is that an unreasonable reaction to a good book?
If Stephenson an, say, Banks (or any other writer who can mold a storyline around a story without leaving stretch-marks) ever collaborated the result would be quite interesting to watch.
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am insulted, and bit shamed, that you feel I was being anti-erudite. I'm not. Two of my favorite authors are Carl Sagan and Carl Hiassen, fer crying out loud! If I'm anti-anything, I'm anti spending-a-lot-of-effort-researching-something-an d -then-being-unable-to-present-the-information-in-a -subtle-and-engaging-manner-without-acting-like-it -is-the-most-important-shit-ever-and-then-never-br inging-it-up-again. But I suppose that comes from being an essay buf
Umberto Eco's a good example of *his* point (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as you mention it, I happen to be rereading "Name of the Rose" at night lately, and my impression from the first time -- that he was self-indulgent, like you're saying -- is basically completely gone by now. The book's really written cleanly, it works incredibly well. Also I'm finding his characters are more complete than I'd remembered them. (The movie, though, stunk.)
I truly hate the idea that all fiction has to be so "tight" that every word drives the plot forward another step. If an author wants to assume I'm bright and curious enough to read two pages about pipe organs, and she can write, I'm there. Not everything has to have the narrative compression of a touring Broadway show. Sometimes it's okay to assume your audience is made up of intelligent, curious people who'll stick with you a little.
Thomas Mann is another author whose stuff you probably wouldn't tolerate. Your loss, seriously. Sometimes Peter Cook's "Bedazzled" is cool, but there's a place in the world for "Doctor Faustus" too.
And okay, sometimes those learned digressions are self-conscious fat to be trimmed -- but that isn't limited to "intellectual" fiction at all. Tom Clancy's got as much worthless detail (about military hardware) as anyone. The rafts of detail are painful to wade through, for me.
So, uh, nope -- it's not as "simple as that."
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:2)
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except at the end of a program, you have close all your open brackets. And, programs do not need to have overblown hollywood showdowns as endings --
seriously, I was fascinated by NS's books. I read Snowcrash, Diamond Age (the first novel I read on my cellphone, commuting), Cryptonomicon --- every one of these books made me unable to put them down during their first chapters, and had me cringing more and more towards their less than satisfying resolutions. This may be just a matter of taste, though. (But seriously -- mind-controlling magic qualities of the old sumerian language???)
Mind-controling Sumerian... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, come on, it's fiction! It's at least as believable as Elven magic...
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:3, Funny)
He does that. It just looks like }}}}}}}}.
The showdown IS closing open brackets (Score:3, Insightful)
Or {parentheses, as the case may be}.
You didn't see the last chapter of Cryptonomicon in the right light. To me, it looked like a friggin' LISP program with several hundred pages worth of loose ends tied up as best Stephenson could manage.
(My fave (LISP) idiom was the square brace (that told the interpreter, "dammit, *you* count the parentheses (I'm done here]
Re:The showdown IS closing open brackets (Score:2, Interesting)
what he said. this is really the best (and shortestest) characterisation of NS's 'plot-crashing' I can think of.
yep, the concept of a human 'machine language' is cool. but, in a cyberpunk (not, faery or whatnot) setting, shouldn't at least an attempt be made to be neurologically credible? just evoking sumerian is lame. if you study only a little bit of sumerian, you will see that it is just another human language people write their everyday stuff in. for my taste
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) He invented half the virtual world, knew all its tricks, wrote the swordfighting code, etc.
2) He was a master swordfighter himself.
3) He owned like the fastest and coolest car ever.
4) But as the book starts, he's living in a storage container and working as a pizza boy? Er... huh?
5) Not to mention, he's like 30 years old. There's no way anyone can accomplish this in 30 years of *work*, much less 15 or so.
Not even close to believable.
Oh, and then there were the stupid pointless scenes of gore that made me almost puke. (One of the cops getting impaled, for instance... had nothing to do with the story, was just there to gross you out.)
That said, the premise of the book was quite clever... but the lameness outweighed the coolness by quite a bit. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, of course, but Snowcrash was the first, and last, Stephenson I'll read.
Re:Neal Stephenson... (Score:3, Informative)
Clearly you just didn't get the aesthetic -- it wasn't supposed to be believable. Snowcrash was originally supposed to be a graphic novel -- i.e., a comic book -- but the artist bailed or flaked out, so Stephenson decided to make it into a text novel instead, while keeping the comic book sensibility. That's one of the reasons why the book is so interesting and groundbreaking. This crossbreeding of mediums had not been attempted much previously. Or at least not so successful
Snowcrash vs Cryptomicon : WWF final (Score:4, Funny)
b) C is funnier than S
c) S has the best shaggy dog story (the fight in the mall)
d) C has the best sidebars. The breakfast cereal one, in particular.
e) S is a bit, well, dull. Software hackers (or pizza delivery people) might be very interesting to themselves, but entrepeneurs are more exciting to read about for the rest of us.
I make that 4:1 in favour of the current heavyweight, Mr Cryptonomicon.
Fix! fix!
Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
1. More consistant pacing. Cryptonomicon meanders in places.
2. Cryptonomicon starts so, and ends so fast you'd miss it if you blinked. It's as if his editor told him to hurry the book up, and Stephenson crammed the ending into as short a space as possible. Diamond Age suffers from this even further, stuffing as much as possible into the ending chapter. An epilogue would be so appreciated. Snow Crash ends a lot better, and seems better planned out.
3. Can't figure out why you think Snow Crash is dull. Personally, I found Cryptonomicon to be dull in a few parts, whilst Snow Crash kept up its fast pacing most all the way through.
Personally, I far prefer Snow Crash over Cryptonomicon. It's also the only Neal Stephenson book I've read that doesn't seem to much suffer from a rushed ending.
Description of the spoon (Score:3, Funny)
I woke my wife up while reading in bed last night and giggling at his description of the spoon.
Now there you go. That's the kind of person that identifies with the nerdy kinds of obsessive/compulsive behavior and intense attention to minutiae that Stephenson can imbue his characters with, as well as the geeky aspects of the characters and overall story. I think people who are nerds will appreciate the highly detailed and circumlocutive descriptions and sequences. Geeks will enjoy the technical descripti
So much for metaphors (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So much for metaphors (Score:2)
Reader: 'What?'
'Huh.'
This is usually followed by an immediate reboot
Re:So much for metaphors (Score:2)
Yeah. A reader 'bluescreen' goes sort of like this:
Reader: 'What?'
[reads last sentence again]
'Huh!'
[throws book across room]
This is often followed by an immediate reboot
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand. You don't see lawyers clamoring at the bit for Grisham's insights into their world, but you see IT dorks hanging on every word a sci-fi author drops like he just came down from teh mountain with the 10 tips to avoid being outsourced chiseled into two stone tablets.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got the answer right there. Insight. Great SF writers have insights that are way beyond a popular fiction hack. Asimov projected a few simple ideas into the future, explored their impacts on society, and imagined solutions that future scientists might come up with to solve the problems that arise from new technology. Many of the ideas that SF writers like Asimov and Clarke (geosyncronous satellites, anyone?) have come up with have had real impact on our world.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. Theres no science at all in 1984, and thats pretty much the only book he wrote that could even conceivably be thought of as SF. Road to Wigan Pier, Homage To Catalonia: SF? surely you jest.
Well, you pays your money, you takes your choice. Personally, I find Stephenson dull -- too obsessed with the minutiae of technology to include such things as good characterisation and a plot that resolves satisfyingly. (I know its a cli
Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, its set in a future world, but not one that is all that far removed from the paranoia in the information department of the BBC, during WWII. Orwell himself said this was the primary influence.
Sure, its hyperbole, but Orwell had personal experience of both Soviet Russia and Franco's Spain, so the ideas and working of totalitarian states was well known to him.
1984 is about the future to the s
Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats a massively over-broad definition. Enormous amounts of fiction can be so described. By that definition, "Animal Farm" is SF/F because pigs can't really speak English. Maybe Dante's "Divine Comedy" is SF/F because angels and demons and ghosts exist in it.
How about this definition [wikipedia.org]:
Science fiction is a form of fiction which deals principally with the i
Re:What? (Score:2)
Similarly, you'd have to say that Philip K. Dick isn't a scifi writer, as he only introduces technological innovations either as scenery or to explore philosophical concepts via imagined technology.
My favourite definition of Scifi is:
"Mainstream fiction is about people walking in and out of rooms and saying satuff to each
Re:What? (Score:2, Interesting)
Dick's an interesting one. Some of his novels are clearly sci-fi : "Do Androids Dream..." (are robots capable of feeling, what does it mean to be human in a world of sentient machines, how do mood-altering machines and TV-based religious cults affect us). "Valis" / "Radio Free Albemuth" are religious allegori
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
One could argue it takes a much more developed imagination, knowledge of society and science, insight on the past, etc, to be able to fabricate a believable future with culture, economy, technology, politics, etc that explore whe
Re:What? (Score:2)
Now that's a little too extreme.
Who'll take care of my lawn and children?
Re:Coupland? (Score:3, Informative)
Coupland & Oblig. Simpsons Ref. (Score:4, Funny)
</troy mcclure>
The Coupland File [lycos.fr], for more info.
Re:Coupland - reprise (Score:2)
wrongitty wrong
I have read "All families are psychotic"
And enjoyed it very much
Gong!
(c) not all Limericks rhyme either
Oh, I know... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the morility plays that have shown up in Grisham novels that I've read were not profound. They were just extensions or plays off of what we already know are current consequences of laws.
On the other hand, Asimov (and I'd point out Philip Dick) put a lot of thought into the moral and ethical issues that could come out of technology that doesn't yet exist.
Some of these predictions have already come true, because they were both profound and well thought out. There has been scientific research into robotics based on ideas from Asimov and Dick.
They all tell good stories, but the bonus of SciFi is the profound consideration of things that could someday become reality.
That said, there are things suggested by SciFi writers that are absurd. But people use thier own judgement as to whether these ideas have merit. Obviously, a lot of people have respect for Asimov's ideas. I think your best bet is to read some Asimov books and judge his ideas in their original context.
Re:Oh, I know... (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be comparing Asimov and Grisham's works as if they were virtually interchangeable. They're not. Disregarding the issue of whether one is better than the other (and one always is better, depending on who you ask), Isaac Asimov's science fiction and John Grisham's legal fiction cannot easily be compared because they are two different and distinct forms of fiction.
Grisham's work takes the existing laws of the legal world (in this case, actual legislation) and uses them as a framework for his novels. Lawyers already know these laws, and more often than not they're so common-knowledge that even IANALs can easily grasp the basics. In other words, a non-sci-fi author works with what is already known.
Asimov's work took what (at the time) was a far-off concept and imagined what it would be like once real life caught up with it. Good science fiction isn't fiction at all-- it's philosophy and prediction. At some point in the future-- eventually-- we are going to have to deal with the prospect of robotics (Asimov). At some point in the future we are going to have to deal with direct computer-to-brain interfaces (Gibson). At some point we are going to have the technology that the authors of yesterday detailed and in some cases designed for us.
Maybe I fell too hard for an obvious troll, but you raised what I thought was a semi-interesting (if somewhat ignorant) question.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not always. One aspect of science fiction is that the author has complete control over the universe in which it is set. The author can use this control to create an environment specially tuned for the exploration of a theme of traditional literature. As an example, consider the themes of love and loneliness in Asimov's "The Naked Sun". Examining the hypothetical role of robots in society can also relate to the role of individ
Re:What? (Score:2)
Given that they have a reasonable amount of time on their hands they will have attempted to write some fiction. Probably in a world of latex sex kittens and free bananas. They know its kinda hard.
If you enjoy someones work - respect the effort and talent involved - and most of all were impressed with some of the ideas in the guys work - its worth show
Re:What? (Score:2, Interesting)
If it weren't for the sci-fi authors of the 30's, 40's and 50's, we wouldn't nearly be as motivated a technological culture as we currently are.
I'm amazed that you are unable to see this connection, honestly. Maybe you don't know what the word 'inspiration [reference.com]' means?
Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
science fiction writers... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe because they can spell and punctuate properly?
Mark
--
In accordance with all spelling/grammar flames, this posting contains one (1) error.
More Info on Asimov (Score:2)
Quicksilver (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Quicksilver (Score:3, Informative)
I liked the description of naval tactics as they were trying to escape the pirates.
I also liked the fact that he has a Waterhouse founding MIT.
Re:Quicksilver (Score:4, Interesting)
The detail, the incredibly tumultuous times... all these historically great scientific figures who hadn't worked out how to do science yet.... The political upheaval... the fights over the calculus... the amazing picture of London it built up...
a couple of pages here and there dragged on, but I was entranced. I called in sick for a couple of days to work to simply sit at home and read it.
I don't get the Snow Crash hero-worship though. It's kind of crap. Cryptonomicon was brilliant, Diamond Age slightly less so and Zodiac was a good yarn.
Re:Quicksilver (Score:2)
Re:Quicksilver (Score:2)
Re:Quicksilver (Score:2, Insightful)
Eventually, I finished it, after putting it down for weeks at a time and then reading in three-day stretches. I'll read the second eventually, but maybe I'll wait for it to hit the discou
Re:Quicksilver (Score:2)
Reuseable code... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Reuseable code... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just read some of Heinlien's latter works for empirical evidence.
Writing != Programming (Score:5, Insightful)
Programming is becoming the the new age lemming work for the 21st century. Writing "a great story" takes the creative juices and adds the authors personality and unique style. Add "unique" style to code and you have just become a sloppy programmer.
Re:Writing != Programming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Writing != Programming (Score:2, Interesting)
How would YOU know? Have you done both?
Stephenson has. Not many people know this as he doesn't really advertise it, but Neal Stephenson is a key contributor to the Linux kernel. He is also responsible for adding Chuck Cranor's UVM to NetBSD.
Re:Writing != Programming (Score:3, Funny)
You mean the Finux [sffworld.com] kernel (read at the end of the article)
Re:Writing != Programming (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's hilarious that the article includes an edited version of Stephenson's comments comparing programming the writing. He was led into that question by the interviewer and he heavily qualified his answer, to the point where it basically boiled down to "both involve typing". Yet we Slashdotters are ready to jump all over it -- "OMG Neal and I are exactly the same we'll be best friends 4EVER!!!"
Stephenson's awesome: an entertaining writer and a geek to boot. Let's not forget which one comes first.
ObSimpsons (Score:2, Funny)
J.K. Rowling, increasingly annoyed: He grows up and marries you. Is that what you want to hear?
Lisa, dreamily: Yes.
The short version (Score:2, Funny)
Or to put a Tao spin on it
"The finest program begins with a single keystroke."
So... (Score:4, Funny)
Works in Progress (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll only read the article (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'll only read the article (Score:5, Funny)
Of course it has an ending. You set up this recursive loop, see, and you have it going around and around. And you have this other thread running in the background. And it spawns two child processes. And then you do a malloc(), and you say "Holy Fark! Only three pages free!". So you exit(0) and kill -9 everything.
Halting problem, my ass. All Stephenson novels halt. You even get advanced warning when you realize that you can feel your right forefinger and your right thumb through the last couple of pages! What more could you ask for?
(Disclaimer: I love Stephenson's novels. I despise the abrupt endings, though. I hope for the sake of Mrs. Stephenson that he doesn't fuck like he writes. If he does fuck like he writes, would she please enclue him? It might improve his writing!)
if you like Stephenson (Score:3, Informative)
Greg Bear
William Gibson (you already knew that)
Terry Pratchett (more humorous, but nice)
"the light of other days" (forgot the author)
there's some really good stuff in there.
A friend and I trade our 'best sf' books, fortunately fair use still allows that (but I'm beginning to wonder for how long). If the goons get their way fair use on other media could go out the window too, let's see:
This book is sold under the following EULA:
You may read this book *once*. Upon reading the last page of the book you agree to destroy it. You may not discuss the contents of this book in private or in public, nor shall you lend it to someone else or give it away, other than unopened and unread.
Re:if you like Stephenson (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd recommend Baxter too, especially the Manifold... series. And EARLY James Hogan (Voyage From Yesteryear, Inherit the Stars, Thrice Upon a Time)
More in the same vein... (Score:4, Interesting)
More in a similar vein:
"The Days of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley Robinson
"Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus" by Orson Scott Card (the last decent book he wrote)
Less speculative, but historical and rollicking good fun: "The Aubury-Maurtin Series" by Patrick O'Brian, starting with "Master and Commander"
Pure history: "The Invasion of Canada" by Pierre Burton
DG
Good Baroque Cycle Resource (Score:5, Informative)
Why is he still considered Science Fiction? (Score:4, Informative)
Snow Crash, OK. Diamond Age, yes yes. But Cryptonomicon is not very science fiction-y. It's more Tom Clancy than SF--I mean these are computer scientists and all, but they aren't neutronic worms living on the surface of a star. And I just know the librarians are going to toss Quicksilver over there once it's off the "New" shelf. This book is historical fiction-- albeit about nerds, but it's "HF" none the less. (I can't wait for the next Con! Ye Olde Renaissance Faire!).
When's this guy going to get some credit for moving on?
Re:Why is he still considered Science Fiction? (Score:4, Interesting)
These books are considered science fiction by bookstores and libraries because they are published by a scince fiction imprint and marketted as science fiction books. The publisher probably chose to do that because they thought there would be more of a financial reward promoting the books to Stephenson's existing fan base (which looks at the science fiction racks) then seeking a new fan base (which may look elsewhere in the store/library).
Similarly, you tend to see the science fiction of established "literary" authors (such as Margaret Atwood) is not marketted as science fiction.
If you pay attention to these things you may notice that there are a number of books that are marketted to different genres, either simulaneously or sequentially. One of the more famous examples of this was the "adult" (trade paperback sized) version of _Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone_, with the photograph of the steam engine on the cover, which came out at the same time as the children's edition (but with a significantly higher price). A number of books and series have been marketted sometimes as "fantasy" and at other times as "children's" or "young adults".
Re:Why is he still considered Science Fiction? (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, this is prolly his least populare book (i acutally enjoyed it) and it was his first. So he hadn't really been pigeonholed by marketers yet. But at least there is a precidence for him not having all of his book in SF. So perhaps this book will end up keeping the lonely "the big U" company on the fiction shelves
Libraries Respecting "SF" as Historical Fiction (Score:3, Informative)
I've found that my local librarians are responsive -- indeed, grateful -- when I tell that a book published as "science fiction" is actua
Re:Why is he still considered Science Fiction? (Score:3, Informative)
But Cryptonomicon is not very science fiction-y.
Wrong. Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, and the Confusion is science-fiction.
Reason is ROT13'ed for spoilers.
Ubj znal cbyvgvpny rfcvbantr obbxf unir na vzzbegny punenpgre?
Rabpu Ebbg vf vzzbegny. Ur nyfb nccrnef gb unir gur cbjre gb envfr gur qrnq, ng yrnfg, Obool Funsgbr oryvrirf Rabpu unf guvf cbjre va Pelcgbabzvpba.
Va Dhvpxfvyire, ur unf nanpebavfgvp xabjyrqtr nobhg veba naq narzvn gung nccrnef gb or qryvorengr. Ur vf nyfb engure ybat yvirq n
Re:Why is he still considered Science Fiction? (Score:3, Interesting)
When I first got into SF many decades ago, the two main attractions for me were cool conceptualizations of space stuff and described universes where diversity of species was honored and worked towards. Not all th
Re:Why is he still considered Science Fiction? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was at my local library the other day, and was pleasantly surprised to discover that they had completely eliminated the artificial category segregation. Adult Fiction was one long zigzag, alphabetical by author. Hyperion, Ileum, Joe Kurtz, etc were sandwiched between novels from two other Simmonses. Definitely the way a library should operate -- better for the readers, easier for the staff. You might want to suggest this to your li
Character abuse (Score:2)
And sometimes you just kill them off, you sadist!
Really, you'd think a writer (especially Stephenson) would know the difference between computer keys (the little plastic things on your keyboard) and computer characters (the little invisible things in your computer's memory).
Parts of the book (Score:2, Informative)
Similar to Usenix 2004 Keynote (Score:3, Interesting)
Neal Stephenson gave a talk similar to this interview as a keynote last June at Usenix 2004 in San Antonio. Turns out he's also a rocket geek, so I got to chat with him briefly: very nice guy.
Writing CAN BE like Programming. (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe he writes "choose your own ending" books under a pseudonym.
Re:Writing is like Programming? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Writing is like Programming? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been a long time since anyone used a fountain pen to enter their programs, though.
Re:Writing is like Programming? (Score:2)
Re:Yeah - it's marketing, poor marketing (Score:3, Interesting)
I know you're trolling, but I think my experience regarding this is interesting.
I like Neal Stephenson's writing, if for no other reason than that I thought that Snow Crash was an absolute blast (if you like Gibson, you're probably going to like Snow Crash).
I own three copies of Snow Crash.
I was mucking about on kast [sourceforge.net], one of the more interesting (if unlikely to take the world by storm) P2P systems out there, and too
Re:One character at a time... (Score:2)
Re:One character at a time... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:the article is too long (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Command pipeline full of holes! (Score:2)
grep: invalid option -- r
Usage: grep [OPTION]... PATTERN [FILE]...
Try `grep --help' for more information.
I think you've got an enhanced version of grep, there.
Re:Writing is like Programming... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:not the best writer in the world (Score:3, Insightful)
I also found some of the insights in his work very interesting. I don't agree with all of them, but...well, let me put it this way. NS work reminds me vaguely of the literary version of The Matrix. The Matrix (the first movie) had lots of ridiculously over-the-top dialog and posturing, and was popular because of a bit of philosophy that was thrown in. NS throws a lot of interesting ideas into his books, and has the
Re:Science fiction? (Score:4, Funny)