Snow Crash reread

Back in 2016 I belatedly reviewed Neal Stephenson's 1992 novel Snow Crash - it seemed a good time to revisit and dive into it a little more than was possible in a straightforward review. Back then I commented 'If you like the kind of science fiction that hits you between the eyes and flings you into a high-octane cyber-world, particularly if you have an IT background, this is a masterpiece.' That certainly holds true of the first half.

Perhaps the closest parallel here is the 2010 Christopher Nolan film, Inception. Both are scintillatingly delightful, but tail off at the end. The movie, still one of my favourites, loses it somewhat when it turns into a sub-Bond action movie and then ends oddly. By contrast, Snow Crash gets distinctly bogged down by an interminable section where main character Hiro is doing the metaverse equivalent of library work on a convoluted theory that combines the Babel story and some Chariots of the Gods-like uber-speculation, which becomes somewhat tedious.

As is the case with Inception, the final denouement doesn't feel a good fit to the rest, with the treatment of the other main character, Y. T. reduced for much of that section to damsel-in-distress mode - jarring when compared with her intelligent and resourceful nature when armed with a skateboard. I was even more struck than I was when first reading the book in 2016 that Y. T.'s brief relationship with a psychotic killer was worryingly paedophilic.

It's impossible, though, not to admire the imagination that Stephenson deployed in Snow Crash. First there's a totally deregulated USA, where the only 'laws' are those enforced by corporations - a future that feels worryingly closer now, given recent political changes in the country. And second, there's the whole concept of the metaverse. There had been many other stories of virtual reality worlds, but Stephenson gives us one that is based not on the purely imaginary technology of something like The Matrix, but where the realities of his understanding coding shine through.

Of course there are limits to that imagination's ability to probe the future. Where Stephenson's metaverse is far more sophisticated than anything we have now, his characters still carry calculators alongside their basic phones. But bearing in mind that in 1992 major computing corporations still had very little interest in the internet, and the web had only been opened to the public one year before and was still primarily text-based, this remains extremely impressive.

I'm sure that most tech entrepreneurs have read Snow Crash - and given Meta's name, its concepts are hard to avoid. But perhaps those with political inclinations should also take note of the less than savoury aspects that come through in Stepehenson's book when they think of the future.

You can buy Snow Crash from Amazon.co.uk Amazon.com and Bookshop.org

Image by UK Black Tech from Unsplash

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

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...

Search This Blog