Skip to main content

A cracking conceit

I have just finished reading Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon (see at Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com), recommended to me by a couple of people, to whom I think I'm grateful. This is, without doubt one of the most remarkable books I've ever read. It's almost as if an author has set out to break all the traditional rules for a successful novel, and has made it succeed by sheer willpower. There something hypnotic about this book's attractiveness.

Aside from its absurd length, there were bits that really irritated. The fictional island race that were a cross between Western islanders and Manx, for instance, were initially baffling, then an over-played joke. Various sections dragged. Whenever he transcribed an email they seemed intentionally boring. I admit to skipping through a few pages occasionally when the plot obviously wasn't going anywhere. And the ending was a let down - the whole thing had been so complex, so conspiratorial and so engaging that the end goal seemed to underplay the effort of reading it.

Yet despite all this it has to be one of the best novels I've read. It helps, I suspects, that many of the principle characters are geeks (and I found the sections centred on them much more interesting than the gung-ho war sections). It's worth trying - and giving it time to get going, because something of this complexity is impossible to really get into in the first few pages. Remarkable.

I'm now gathering enough wind to take on Stephenson's even bigger Baroque Cycle.

Comments

  1. The Baroque cycle is the same, but more so... there are some good geek jokes in it though (I think around 800 pages in)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not got that far yet, but enjoying it so far. I read up a lot on Newton when I wrote Light Years, so it's interesting seeing this fictional version of him and the early Royal Society. I just love their random interest in, well, everything (if not the tendency to cut dogs up).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense