I didn't mind it at all, and I actually kinda liked the ending of Diamond Age in the way it subverted expectations of typical story telling. By the end of Diamo

I didn't mind it at all, and I actually kinda liked the ending of Diamond Age in the way it subverted expectations of typical story telling. By the end of Diamond Age a lot of the questions you have in the earlier parts have been answered (what has happened to people, how they've developed, etc.) And a lot of story arcs have also blossomed and/or run their courses. The story itself is about Nell's coming of age and fulfillment of her potential. By the end it's obvious she's achieved both, and I liked that the novel didn't coddle the reader with a typical over the top happy ending where everyone achieves closure, most of the good people live, and every story line is tucked into bed carefully with a glass of warm milk by the bedside. I'm an adult, I don't need that all the time. The real world doesn't work that way, and real stories don't work that way. One of the dividing lines I have personally for "good" versus "bad" art is whether or not it blooms or withers upon further thought. Diamond Age, I would say, definitely rewards the reader for further thought, because it's a deep and fascinating world with interesting characters and stories. True, the ending of the book doesn't provide complete closure, but to be honest if you want that you can have it just by making up your own ending. That's part of the fun of that book, is that it leaves it open for you to fill in the blanks afterward, and seemingly things looked like they might have worked out alright for Nell. One of the best books at getting across the concept of not needing complete closure at the end of a book is The Fault in Our Stars by John Green, though that book primes the reader for it whereas Diamond Age doesn't.