I suppose it’s a matter of taste then. I don’t really mind the expository style. Incidentally, Greg Egan is also one of my favourites, and I’d say he does use some amount of exposition, for example in Diaspora, or the Orthogonal Series (amazing work).
modulus
Interested in the intersections between policy, law and technology. Programmer, lawyer, civil servant, orthodox Marxist. Blind.
Interesado en la intersección entre la política, el derecho y la tecnología. Programador, abogado, funcionario, marxista ortodoxo. Ciego.
- 0 Posts
- 4 Comments
I liked Anathem a lot. I think I enjoyed all of Neal Stephenson’s books up to (but excluding) Seveneves, whereupon I gave up on him. Anathem is one of my favourite books.
spoiler
However, it’s true that Neal Stephenson somewhat recycles the same themes and concerns. For example, the whole “radioactive storage under an academic institution” thing was used in The Big U as well. The theme regarding Platonism appeared in different forms, for instance in the exploration of the organ in Cryptonomicon. That didn’t stop me from enjoying it though.
The whole notion of monks in space seems absurd because of how people see monks. But this is both ahistorical and contrary to the way they work in the book. Copernicus and Mendel were monks. And these particular ones were all about learning maths and theorics (physics). They didn’t optimise for technology, because they weren’t allowed, but they optimised for learning, for extracting information out of tiny details. I think they’d do alright in a scientific(ish) mission.
I get why people say this, but I like his digressions. It’s not just a matter of learning something new (though occasionally one does) but of how he uses language to express it.
Oddly, I have a friend who’s not much into SF but absolutely loved Quicksilver (and the whole Baroque Cycle). She also enjoyed Anathem. But Cryptonomicon or other Stephenson’s books left her uninterested.