Anathem

[Gilgamesh]

I'd not read any of Stephenson's books before, and on this basis I won't be reading any more of his in the future.

Anyway. The book is far too long, with lugubrious sections devoted purely to "dialog". I am somewhat familiar with Plato's ideas, along with a few of the other philosophers involved, concepts of relativity and truth, etc etc. I am not particularly familiar with (or for that matter, interested in) Quantum physics, high level Maths or other such subjects. So on the one hand I was bludgeoned with ideas that I know, on the other I was slathered with theories and jargon that grated on my patience. Stephenson's decision to create a new vocabularly was, to an extent, understandable in the context of a different "worldtrack", but it only clouded the issues being discussed. Furthermore, the creation of this new lexicon was not applied consistently, which only irritated me more.

Ultimately, as a work of fiction, I don't think it succeeds. Stephenson has a habit of describing structures/environments at great length (though curiously, not characters) to no purpose. Spouting architectural or mechanical spiel serves no purpose as to driving a narrative, it merely offers a way of constructing a physical model. That is to say, a lot of his description is lengthy without being insightful or poetic.

Other things bothered me throughout the book, not least the descent into wackiness and confusion towards the end, when the narrative moves away from dialogue towards action. Relationships between characters are not explored well - perhaps justified through the first person narrator? Even so the criticism remains.

But the book has redeeming features. It is surprisingly witty at times. In spite of the lumbering way it deals with a variety of concepts and theories, the act of doing so makes it fairly unique among the books I've read recently. What's more, I read it in a (fairly) short space of time, so it can't be all bad.

*Amusing how he arbitrarily sticks in the parallel to Shaolin Kung Fu, without ever justifying it in context.*

[Guest Raidne]

Anyway. The book is far too long, with lugubrious sections devoted purely to "dialog". I am somewhat familiar with Plato's ideas, along with a few of the other philosophers involved, concepts of relativity and truth, etc etc. I am not particularly familiar with (or for that matter, interested in) Quantum physics, high level Maths or other such subjects. So on the one hand I was bludgeoned with ideas that I know, on the other I was slathered with theories and jargon that grated on my patience. Stephenson's decision to create a new vocabularly was, to an extent, understandable in the context of a different "worldtrack", but it only clouded the issues being discussed. Furthermore, the creation of this new lexicon was not applied consistently, which only irritated me more.

:dunno: I thought the vocabulary was fantastic (like the definition of bullshytt) and consistently applied. I thought it was really smart of him to keep it familiar sounding, so that words like "theorics" are not particularly jarring. I also thought it was part of what made the philosophy easier to understand than it is reading it in the usual vocabulary, because it's not burdened by any pre-existing meaning, like so many philosophical terms, particularly reading them in translation.

Also, I know nothing about high level math or quantum physics, and didn't find that it hindered me like my poor understanding of math gunked up my understanding of the cryptography and other parts of Cryptonomicon. I'm not even sure you could really say high level math and physics were involved? Maybe - at some level, the line between metaphysics and theoretical physics breaks down, but in my mind, it was all philosophy.

But yeah, if you didn't like it, I wouldn't read more, even though it is the only book Stephenson has ever written that is both in this genre and this style.

I do think that Stephenson has issues with endings, but with some of them, it's not really his writing, so much as the reader, who starts to read faster as the action picks up. That's a bad idea in a Stephenson novel. I'm not sure if it's his fault for not compensating for that, or the reader's fault.

ETA: By the inconsistency critique, do you mean the words he created weren't used consistently, or that all the philosophical concepts were not consistently given new words? The latter makes perfect sense within the world he created, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Popping in here really quick with a general question on Stephenson.

I'm finally reading Cryptonomicon for the first time and I'm about 1/3 in and really liking it. I read Snow Crash and loved it. That's all I've read of this guy thus far but it feels like I'm going to want to read all of his stuff.

Is there any suggested order I ought to read his remaining stuff? Baroque Cycle is the only series that he has right? Everything else is a stand alone?

Does Anathem have any potential to be a series or is it also purely a stand alone?

Merci

I would say it is definitely a standalone. I guess a sequel is always possible, but in this case it would have to go far to deeply in the realm of the bizarre, IMHO.

[AverageGuy]

Is there any suggested order I ought to read his remaining stuff? Baroque Cycle is the only series that he has right? Everything else is a stand alone?

More or less. Baroque Cycle and Cryptonomicon are set in the same world, not that you really need to have read one to get the other. It's sort of like Kay if you've read his stuff. So, there's no real reading order in my opinion.

[Guest Raidne]

A LOT of the characters in TBC have the same last names as the characters in Cryptonomicon, so those three worth reading right after it for maximum entertainment value, IMO.

[Iskaral Pust]

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.

I think this is the most I've agreed with Raidne by some distance. Anathem has made me want to go back and study some philosophy, and then do a re-read. I went to his website to see the links to references (as mentioned in the author's note at the end of Anathem) but there were none. I'll have to hunt them down myself.

I expect Anathem to be a stand-alone. The story is finished. I don't see a natural way to extend it. However, I am very interested to see Stephenson's next work.

I've wondered why there hasn't been a full thread here on Stephenson. The "Stephenson vs. Bakker" thread didn't really do justice to the discussion. I think that with Cryptonomicon onward he moved into a higher league and really found his voice/style to deliver the kind of idea-driven material he had hinted at in his earlier books. I am incredibly impressed by how well he is now able to deliver that kind of material.

I just recently read Snow Crash and Diamond Age. I was somewhat underwhelmed by both, but I have to put them in the perspective of when they were written. Snow Crash was fun enough, but too desperate to be cool and it relied heavily on the Lawnmower Man view of cyberspace. The theory on Enki's language dispersion was very creative though. Diamond Age had a creative mix of Confucianism and imagining a world of nanotechnology, but the plot felt like an adaptation of Ender's Game and I think he was too oblique with the initial handling of the Drummers, which detracted from the coherence of that passage. Both were enjoyable reads though, but they don't compare favorably to his later work.

I think Cryptonomicon and Anathem are his best work. I like the Baroque Cycle a lot too, but I think it got over-long, especially in the third book, and he lost control of the pacing. That could be because he wanted his characters to hang around for actual historical events, but that entire story could have been told in far fewer pages with tigher pacing and flow and would have been much better for it. I would have forgiven him for contracting the timeline of actual historical events, but that didn't even seem necessary considering he was willing to leave time gaps in the narrative. Perhaps the problem was with the balance. The third book could have been much shorter than the second, which could have been slightly shorter than the first.

And Stephenson does not get enough credit for his humor. Jack Shaftoe, Bobby Shaftoe and Lawrence Pritchard Waterhouse are hilarious.

Anyone who enjoys Stephenson might want to check out Simon Singh, who writes non-fiction math in a very accessible novel-like structure.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

I went to his website to see the links to references (as mentioned in the author's note at the end of Anathem) but there were none. I'll have to hunt them down myself.

You can find some info here: http://anathem.wikia.com/wiki/Anathem_Wiki

This wiki is still under work, though.

And Stephenson does not get enough credit for his humor. Jack Shaftoe, Bobby Shaftoe and Lawrence Pritchard Waterhouse are hilarious.

This sure is true. Stephenson is one of the few authors who consistently can make me laugh aloud when reading their books.

[Guest Raidne]

I think Cryptonomicon and Anathem are his best work. I like the Baroque Cycle a lot too, but I think it got over-long, especially in the third book, and he lost control of the pacing. That could be because he wanted his characters to hang around for actual historical events, but that entire story could have been told in far fewer pages with tigher pacing and flow and would have been much better for it. I would have forgiven him for contracting the timeline of actual historical events, but that didn't even seem necessary considering he was willing to leave time gaps in the narrative. Perhaps the problem was with the balance. The third book could have been much shorter than the second, which could have been slightly shorter than the first.

Really? The third book is really the only one that I think couldn't be any shorter, and I found it to be the best and most deliberately paced of the three. The first sets the stage, the second is an adventure story, a good yarn, told for its own sake, and the third is the heart of the story - at its heart, a mystery, and the culmination of the dynamic character of Daniel Waterhouse and several other major plotlines that I won't spoil. All at the same time. I'm thinking back over it right now, and I can't imagine what you could possibly edit or cut out.

[Iskaral Pust]

Really? The third book is really the only one that I think couldn't be any shorter, and I found it to be the best and most deliberately paced of the three. The first sets the stage, the second is an adventure story, a good yarn, told for its own sake, and the third is the heart of the story - at its heart, a mystery, and the culmination of the dynamic character of Daniel Waterhouse and several other major plotlines that I won't spoil. All at the same time. I'm thinking back over it right now, and I can't imagine what you could possibly edit or cut out.

The third book just didn't work for me. It was his only book that I really had to plod through. Daniel felt more like a witness than a character; the grand escapade by L'Emmerdeur was great but too drawn out; Caroline and all her chapters could have been dropped; the investigatory club was a good device but again too drawn out; Eliza was a pitiful shadow of her former self. Some of these criticisms could be pointed to as representations of their aging and the drawing to a close of an era, but I think that's a weak defence. If the trilogy is setting the stage, advancing the conflict/drama and then reaching a climax, then that was a damp squib of a climax. I think he over-reached. There wasn't enough in the third book to have it as long as the first two, but he tried anyway.

The second book had better pacing and more adventure, but it also lost the thread of the central story. The wanderings of Shaftoe and co were interesting to show us the watered steel (I like it when Enoch drops in) and more besides, but the Solomonic gold was introduced in Cadiz amid great drama and did not really add much value to the story by traipsing all over the world. Sometimes sprawl is good, but I think it got away from him and progressively more so.

But I don't want to sound too negative. Overall I really enjoyed the series. But I won't be re-reading like I have with Cryptonomicon or will with Anathem.

[Guest Raidne]

But I don't want to sound too negative. Overall I really enjoyed the series. But I won't be re-reading like I have with Cryptonomicon or will with Anathem.

You're missing out. :) Maybe I've done so many rereads that I can't really get a good handle on what it's like to have read the series once.

For my money, the detective story in the third book plays out brilliantly, and the second book, IMO, intentionally veers off the main path of the story. And there is just so much great dialogue that I can't really fault Stephenson for anything.

But, I really thought the last book of the Baroque Cycle was the only time he really managed to pull off a perfect ending. It built up, finished dramatically, and then went into a little denouement at the end. Perfect. But, I suppose it's, to some extent, a matter of personal taste. It's the nature of these books that one person can not only not agree with another person's criticism, but cannot even begin to fathom the basis for it, as is the case here.

I will also be rereading Anathem.

[Crow's Eye]

Just finished Anathem. I frakking loved this novel. Stephenson is quickly becoming one of my favorite authors. The world building he did with this work was nothing short of masterful. The vocabulary in particular was perfect and really just seemed to fit perfectly in his world, but also wasn't so foreign as to throw me off. "Planed" was one of my favorites - I've already found myself using it without realizing it.

This is definitely a book I will re-read, probably after I go back and brush up on my Plato.

The ending was a bit of a letdown in terms of the pacing of the book (i.e., a slow but steady acceleration throughout, only to have the end kind of put on the brakes), but that's pretty much the only complaint I can muster.

[oneeye]

I'm on page 50 and already a bit overwhelmed but haven't given up yet.

[Muttering Bill]

I read Anathem last year and thoroughly enjoyed it. The only complaint I had was that the ending could have been explained a little better. It's not too tough to figure out, but there were just a few unanswered questions that I would have liked cleared up (I don't remember what). Otherwise it was brilliant.

I'm working on The Confusion now, and enjoying that quite a bit as well, but I've still been itching to give Anathem a re-read (which is something that I do very rarely).

[Mich]

Finally finished slogging through it. Picked it up awhile ago, then realised I should read it for my Hugo reading. Never finished it in time for voting. From what I had read, I voted for this for 2nd place. I'd probably keep that vote now that I'm finished. Yesterday I told someone I would have voted for this to win the Hugo, now that I'm finished it I've changed my mind.

I found the ending to be seriously lacking. I also think Stephenson was a little too enthusiastic with his worldbuilding. It was complete genius, don't get me wrong. He could have tried introducing it so it was a little easier to read though. He introduced too many foreign concepts at the same time to make the beginning of the book enjoyable in any way. Too many people have had a hard time reading this book for me to gush over it. Someone at worldcon actually likened it to reading Proust :lol: Now that I've finished it, I did enjoy it. It's definitely heavy reading though.

[Eponine]

I just started reading Anathem and it's taken almost no time at all for the setting to click. I admit that I'm a little intimidated by the length considering how slowly I'm having to read because of the invented vocabulary- but the new word meanings are intuitive and not too hard to remember.

I started Crytonomicon a few years ago and didn't finish. Its long digressions were extremely annoying to me. However, I find the same sort of digressions in Anathem to be an interesting part of the story. I wonder how much knowledge of a subject has to do with enjoying reading a novelization of that subject. I know a lot more about cryptography, which I took in grad school, than about philosophy- and I'd rather just read the rigorous, non-convoluted version of the former. But it sounds like Raidne, who's the opposite way around, enjoyed reading more about the subject she was already knowledgeable in. Or it may have to do with the nature of the subject- something that's well communicated through rhetoric probably makes better dialog than something that's well communicated through proofs.

[Serious Callers Only]

I couldn't even finish Big U when i tried it years ago. I doubt Anathem would hold my atten... whooo a butterfly!

[Guest Raidne]

I started Crytonomicon a few years ago and didn't finish. Its long digressions were extremely annoying to me. However, I find the same sort of digressions in Anathem to be an interesting part of the story. I wonder how much knowledge of a subject has to do with enjoying reading a novelization of that subject. I know a lot more about cryptography, which I took in grad school, than about philosophy- and I'd rather just read the rigorous, non-convoluted version of the former. But it sounds like Raidne, who's the opposite way around, enjoyed reading more about the subject she was already knowledgeable in. Or it may have to do with the nature of the subject- something that's well communicated through rhetoric probably makes better dialog than something that's well communicated through proofs.

Maybe - one of my friends is really into cryptography and Cryptonomicon is his favorite novel. But maybe it's like this - without a graduate degree in it, I'm a total amateur at philosophy, and my friend, while a computer programmer with all the necessary background, is a total amateur at cryptography. So maybe it's just a person's level of expertise? I certainly had new thoughts about Plato's metaphysics from reading Anathem - it wasn't just a pleasant-to-read recap of things I already completely understood.

Or, on the other hand, maybe it's just not done all that well in Cryptonomicon? The digressions on the subject in The Baroque Cycle were written a little better.

I will say this though, Plato (and 2500 years worth of philosophers after him) would turn in his grave to hear you describe philosophical dialog as rhetoric. :stunned: Don't worry, you'll meet a real rhetorician later on. Is it not clear from the discussion in the book that the philosophers are constantly formulating proofs? Only with words, not numbers. And the difficulties and flaws in trying to accomplish that are what philosophy is primarily all about. And also, really, the only thing that makes it any different from mathematics. It's just that logic applies so much more easily to numbers than to words. This is why is always surprises me that people seem to think philosophy is easier. So maybe that's why Anathem is better - maybe the subject is just inherently more interesting. ;)

[Bill Foote]

Ok, poor people can get their hands on it now.

Many good things: themes, world-building, ideas. Dialogs are usually interesting at least, if sometimes a little dry.

I suppose my main problem is the point of view and narrative choice (journal/diary) because as a whole it's not a character-driven novel. It goes beyond Erasmus not being as interesting a narrator Lawrence Waterhouse or any Shaftoe, though props are in order for decent handling of "the character should know this but has to play dumb so we can explain what we're talking about to the audience." How could it have been done better...maybe mix the recollections into a currently happening now tense with different points of view, but since there's already lots of interesting section and part headers already this might get tedious?

I don't mind takes a little while to get rolling with a lot of stuff to pick up, AGoT is exhibit A for that :)

Science stuff is pretty good, our maniacal profs had us do something similar because they hated us...obviously matter from a universe with different fundamentals is going to do weird things. Weird as presented? Not off the top of my head, knee-jerk is that as presented it's not horrible ;) Yes, quantum mechanics is that weird, and there's weirder things he didn't go into.

Edit: in science being ok, obviously I'm skipping the obvious scifi parts like methods of traveling between universes or choosing among timelines. In thinking about it, he may violate a couple laws he presents...up in the air. Would need another closer read.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Edit: in science being ok, obviously I'm skipping the obvious scifi parts like methods of traveling between universes or choosing among timelines. In thinking about it, he may violate a couple laws he presents...up in the air. Would need another closer read.

Honestly, I think Stephenson does best with suspension of disbelief issues when he just brushes right past them. The traveling through multi-worlds seemed to be handled very minimally, if at all; like the heavy gold in tBC. Consequently neither bothered me nearly so much as the belaboured genetic language override stuff in Snow Crash. I suppose it's like werewolves; yeah they're ridiculous but don't let that get in the way of the fun by drawing more attention to it by trying to be plausible.

[Eponine]

This was one of the books I most enjoyed reading this year.

However, my enjoyment peaked well before the ending. The last few chapters described a lot, but they went into incredibly tight detail about small things without introducing a larger idea that held it all together, both technically and character driven. I realize that there was supposed to be a lot of confusion in Erasmus' mind about the reality of his previous experiences, but there's just too much of a lot of other people acting without clear motivation. It bypasses ambiguity and goes right into being a spectator of something he doesn't understand. Sometimes that's fine, but for a episode that's supposed to be the culmination of all the technical and philosophical dialog proceeding, it doesn't really work.

And the ending was really anticlimactic for me. I really disliked the "Ala kept us all together and she's going to feel horrible guilt for putting us all in danger for the rest of her life" subplot, and then everything came together a little too nicely at the end. (I kind of think that Erasmus did too good a job of describing Ala as a total bitch in the beginning, and I never really warm up to people with her personality IRL). I'd have really liked to see a little more ambiguity- the whole previous part with Fraa Jad was about ambiguity and uncertainty, and then a chapter later, everyone lives happily ever after, together. So we go from good, character and plot driven confusion, to standing gaping at the sidelines confusion, to happily ever after.

Edit: I really warmed up to the invented words and had no problems with reading quickly after the first 150 pages (I know that sounds kind of rough, but I enjoyed it reading slowly before that). I now find myself wanting to use certain terms- I said to my boyfriend something about "planing" someone without thinking, and he understood the meaning no problem. I think it's going to become part of my permanent vocabulary.