Anathem

[Doppelganger]

I just hit part 11 in Anathem, and I'm a little lost as to what I just read in part 10. Perhaps I'm a little lost in the terminology - I just need a bit of clarification.

[spoiler]
So that guy pretending to be a Matarrhite was actually one of the Geometers? I guess the Geometers are going through a civil war; what side is he on exactly, and what is his intent?
Is one side of the Geometers going to bomb all the Maths, while the other side of the Geometers is trying to prevent the bombing of the Maths? This is what Ala predicted, right[/spoiler]

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Faulkner;

[spoiler]Yes, those are "good guys" from the ship, being in conflict with aggresive faction[/spoiler]

[Doppelganger]

[spoiler]Has it yet been established why the aggresive faction wants to destroy the maths? Is it simply because they want to acquire nuclear weapons?[/spoiler]

[Peadar]

[quote name='Faulkner' post='1602156' date='Nov 28 2008, 08.37'][spoiler]Has it yet been established why the aggresive faction wants to destroy the maths? Is it simply because they want to acquire nuclear weapons[/spoiler][/quote]


Not yet.

[Doppelganger]

Thanks for clearing that up, guys. I hope to finish this either tonight or tomorrow.

[Mad Queen]

Has any of you seen that Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific magazines in the world, published a positive review of Anathem?

[Doppelganger]

Sweet, I just finished it.

Just one more question;

[spoiler]Why did they cover up how Fraa Jadd really died?[/spoiler]

Overall, I thought the book was amazing.

[Iskaral Pust]

I just finished Anathem and really enjoyed it. I'm surprised this is the only thread discussing it. If someone can explain how to format spoiler text I'd be happy to answer Doppelganger's last question about Fraa Jad.

[Paxter]

I just finished Anathem and really enjoyed it. I'm surprised this is the only thread discussing it. If someone can explain how to format spoiler text I'd be happy to answer Doppelganger's last question about Fraa Jad.

Iskaral (copied straight from the Board FAQ):

CODE

in square brackets: SPOILER=Title of Spoiler

text to be hidden

in square brackets: /SPOILER

[Iskaral Pust]

Thanks Paxter.

Doppelganger - here is my take on your question about Fraa Jad:

In the narrative that experiences a peaceful resolution, Fraa Jad did die immediately after the launch. He survives in only relatively few of the polycosmi, and none of those that ended well. He was an Incanter, manipulating the various narratives to secure the desired outcome, e.g. by successfully entering pod #1 with Raz in one narrative (with 999 failed attempts in other narratives to guess the security code), resulting in the detonation of the Everything Kill within that pod that caused fear-inducing echoes in other narratives making the Urnudans willing to negotiate a peace.

But Fraa Jad's ability had to be kept secret. The frightening power of the Rhetors and Incanters was the reason for the third sack, and those powers were supposed to have ended then - but persisted among the inviolate millenarians, just as there had been select exceptions or grandfathering to the curtailments of the first and second sacks.

[delete this account pls]

I'm about halfway through this and I'll fess up. I don't get it. At all. Maybe I'm a victim of hype, but I'm sort of waiting to see why everyone thinks Stephenson is so brilliant because I haven't seen any evidence so far. Or maybe I'm just too stupid to get it, and it's going way over my head.

[MaesterLuwin]

I'm about halfway through this and I'll fess up. I don't get it. At all. Maybe I'm a victim of hype, but I'm sort of waiting to see why everyone thinks Stephenson is so brilliant because I haven't seen any evidence so far. Or maybe I'm just too stupid to get it, and it's going way over my head.

Honestly, I don't think Stephenson is great at plot or characterization. And frankly, he sucks at action scenes. But he manages to work in interesting philosophical and scientific concepts into his story without seems heavyhanded about it. It's certainly not for everyone. But I'd suggest that you try and appreciate the situation and the ideas that Stephenson presents more than the actual plot or characters. He creates very unique starting points for his novels, even if he's not great at following up on them.

[Iskaral Pust]

Honestly, I don't think Stephenson is great at plot or characterization. And frankly, he sucks at action scenes. But he manages to work in interesting philosophical and scientific concepts into his story without seems heavyhanded about it. It's certainly not for everyone. But I'd suggest that you try and appreciate the situation and the ideas that Stephenson presents more than the actual plot or characters. He creates very unique starting points for his novels, even if he's not great at following up on them.

I totally agree. Stephenson's novels are a mosaic of good scientific concepts woven into a readable story. He is not a great novelist in the literary sense, but he is great at building idea- and science-driven fiction that expand the reader's understanding. There is also a recurring philosophical angle to the books that hints at a fundamental persistence of concepts in our intellect and culture. I find his novels far more satisfying than most fiction, without being so dry and narrow as most non-fiction.

Anathem in particular has much deeper world building than his prior works, and part of the fun is that it is only gradually revealed to us (not unlike the back-story to ASOIAF), with many of the revelations delivered in a pleasingly understated way.

[Paxter]

I totally agree. Stephenson's novels are a mosaic of good scientific concepts woven into a readable story. He is not a great novelist in the literary sense, but he is great at building idea- and science-driven fiction that expand the reader's understanding.

Do you need to have some scientific background to appreciate his books? Or are they accessible to a layperson?

[AverageGuy]

Do you need to have some scientific background to appreciate his books? Or are they accessible to a layperson?

I appreciated the Stephenson I've read (Snow Crash, Baroque Cycle, Cryptonomicon) without being an expert in any of the subjects, so I think they're accessible to a layperson. --Or at least a layperson under 40; I wouldn't try giving Snow Crash or Cryptonomicon to people who were introduced to computers late in life.

[MaesterLuwin]

Do you need to have some scientific background to appreciate his books? Or are they accessible to a layperson?

I was a philosophy major as an undergrad, so I loved Anathem. But my friend with no philosophical background or college education liked it as well. He does a great job at making concepts accessible, I think, but like with most books, the more you know, the deeper you can go.

[Iskaral Pust]

I have no prior knowledge of philosophy or cosmology and still found Anathem very accessible. I do know a fair amount about math and computing, and I thought those subjects were made very accessible and kept at a level that is interesting but not too deep in Cryptonomicon. Same with finance and monetary systems in The Baroque Cycle. I think intellectual curiosity is all you need to enjoy Stephenson, rather than actual prior knowledge of the topic.

[delete this account pls]

I'm going to slog through it. I think my main problem was Information Overload - a fully formed world with 7000+ years of history, culture, tradition, and then the various philosophical, mathematical, and astronomical on top of that. Usually in spec fiction there comes a point where the setting 'clicks' (for me anyway), and things about the world start becoming clearer. That hasn't really happened with Anathem, but I've become intrigued enough to keep going.

[delete this account pls]

I might have spoken too soon. Best Served Cold just arrived. it is ... calling to me.

[Guest Raidne]

Honestly, I don't think Stephenson is great at plot or characterization. And frankly, he sucks at action scenes. But he manages to work in interesting philosophical and scientific concepts into his story without seems heavyhanded about it. It's certainly not for everyone. But I'd suggest that you try and appreciate the situation and the ideas that Stephenson presents more than the actual plot or characters. He creates very unique starting points for his novels, even if he's not great at following up on them.

Really?

I can understand this criticism about his earlier stuff - Snow Crash, Diamond Age, but I thought the plot and characterization in Cryptonomicon, The Baroque Cycle, and Anathem were top-notch. Jack and Eliza in the Baroque cycle are two of my favorite characters in fiction of all time. Maybe my absolute two favorite characters. And the way the story unfolds is very deliberate and complex, as it is in Anathem, which is also in three - if not four - distinct parts. Really, the pacing of Anathem tracks that of the Baroque Cycle - we have the foundational, dramatic period at the beginning, the action period in the middle, and then the true story - the resolution of all that was building during the first two - at the end.

I think Stephenson is a brilliant mind and an absolutely brilliant writer. What Stephenson does not do is signpost his major events and important dialogue in his later books, so you really have to be careful about your pacing while reading to really get his books. Just slow it way, way down. If you can't manage that, you have to read them twice before really giving a fair critique, IMO.

I think Anathem is perfectly accessible to someone without a philosophical background - my husband read and enjoyed it - but it's a faster read if you recognize all the concepts already, and even faster if you can recognize nearly all the ancient philosophers of Arbe from Plato's Dialogues.

Having said that, I understand Plato's Forms better now after reading Stephenson's account of the HTW than I did from reading Plato. It's really that great of a book.

I just finished it, and for me, it's an instant classic.

I do think that Cryptonomicon, TBC, and Anathem are of a completely different class than Snow Crash, Diamond Age, and the like. And even then, there are differences in the strengths and flaws within the categories. For instance, it's often said that Stephenson writes bad endings. And, I would agree that the endings are not the strong points for all but TBC, which had a flawless ending. And whoever thinks his action scenes suck needs to reread the first chapter of Snow Crash. I guess what I mean is that there is a lot of variance, and the most similarities can be found by grouping his earlier and later books, but that it's still hard sometimes to talk about what Stephenson is and is not as a writer because there are always exceptions to be found.

ETA: Also, like TBC, many people will have to slog through the first part of Anathem before they get caught up in the story. I liked that part of it - it's kind of like Bilbo's Birthday Party before the real plot kicks in - but I know some people won't like it just like the beginning of TBC.