5 ms·

Neal Stephenson really matures between Snow Crash and Diamond Age. I read snow crash after some of his later stuff and it's almost hard to believe it's the sam

Neal Stephenson really matures between Snow Crash and Diamond Age. I read snow crash after some of his later stuff and it's almost hard to believe it's the same author. Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon are great books but each has their own style and you would think it was a different author if you didn't know better. That's why I like Stephenson so much. He takes a topic and researches it so much that he brings it to life. Whether he's writing for Wired about expats in South East Asia (which dove tails nicely with Cryptonomicon) or extra dimensional aliens in Anathem, he makes the world come alive and the technology and methodologies clear. He also makes me laugh out loud. Very few books have done that.

jseliger 15y ago
"Neal Stephenson really matures between Snow Crash and Diamond Age. I read snow crash after some of his later stuff and it's almost hard to believe it's the same author." This happens with more writers (and other artists) than many people think. I read Carlos Ruiz Zafón's The Shadow of the Wind and The Angel's Game and loved both: they're incredibly rich and detailed yet driven by plot; they have the action that a lot of unsophisticated readers crave and content that can still satisfy someone who's read 10,000 novels. Oh, and it made me laugh out loud. U.S. publishers are now releasing his young adult novels. Two so far, two more to come. And they're terrible. Almost unreadable bad. No plot, cardboard characters, wild improbability poorly embedded in a paranormal universe. You can see flashes of his later skill, but his early stuff is lousy. I said this in another comment, but I'll say it again here: I just started reading David W. Galenson's Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity, (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691133808/sr=8-1/qid=1315091347?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691133808/sr=8-1/qid=13150...), which is where Malcolm Gladwell stole / sourced his New Yorker article "Late Bloomers - Why do we equate genius with precocity?" (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_...). Galenson says that there are two basic modes for artists to follow: the experimentalists who try many things over long periods of time and eventually reach fullness, and the "conceptual innovators" whose sudden insight into a field fuels their work, which is often done at a young age. Under your reading, Stephenson would be the "experimentalist."
betageek 15y ago
I've enjoyed every Stephenson book apart from Anathem - obviously a lot of people love it but I couldn't see it all, a smattering of maths & philosophy mixed into an overlong and pretty boring 'students journey' plot. Why do people like it so much?
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  The first time I tried reading Anathem, I couldn't get into it and put it down for a year. Then, while travelling (read: lots of time on my hands), I picked it up again and couldn't put it down until I finished it. The richness of the world and the pacing of the plot (past page 300 or so) as the mystery is revealed is gripping. I didn't think it was an earth-shattering book, but it was certainly a great read. In the same vein, Ender's Game is just another book about a child prodigy/outcast who saves the day. It seemed far more profound when I was 13 than it did upon re-reading. Some books aren't revolutionary; they're just a good read. I haven't read Snow Crash or Diamond Age, but I'm about a quarter of the way through Cryptonomicon right now and it's starting to get good. I find Stephensen's books tend to start off slowly then quickly pick up steam.
r00fus 15y ago
Agreed... I read Cryptonomicon first, then Diamond Age (my favorite from him) then Snow Crash, and I found the third book a lot less mature and dated (I read it in 2001, almost a decade after it was published). Diamond Age painted a very deep and rich tapestry of future vision.
- Roboprog 15y ago
  I found Cryptonomicon a painfully long slog. I enjoyed it overall, but only read it because of having read Snow Crash and Zodiac first. I love Stephenson's humor with technical issues. I suppose I should read some of his longer, er, later books.

jseliger 15y ago

"Neal Stephenson really matures between Snow Crash and Diamond Age. I read snow crash after some of his later stuff and it's almost hard to believe it's the same author." This happens with more writers (and other artists) than many people think. I read Carlos Ruiz Zafón's The Shadow of the Wind and The Angel's Game and loved both: they're incredibly rich and detailed yet driven by plot; they have the action that a lot of unsophisticated readers crave and content that can still satisfy someone who's read 10,000 novels. Oh, and it made me laugh out loud. U.S. publishers are now releasing his young adult novels. Two so far, two more to come. And they're terrible. Almost unreadable bad. No plot, cardboard characters, wild improbability poorly embedded in a paranormal universe. You can see flashes of his later skill, but his early stuff is lousy. I said this in another comment, but I'll say it again here: I just started reading David W. Galenson's Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity, (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691133808/sr=8-1/qid=1315091347?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691133808/sr=8-1/qid=13150...), which is where Malcolm Gladwell stole / sourced his New Yorker article "Late Bloomers - Why do we equate genius with precocity?" (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_...). Galenson says that there are two basic modes for artists to follow: the experimentalists who try many things over long periods of time and eventually reach fullness, and the "conceptual innovators" whose sudden insight into a field fuels their work, which is often done at a young age. Under your reading, Stephenson would be the "experimentalist."

betageek 15y ago

I've enjoyed every Stephenson book apart from Anathem - obviously a lot of people love it but I couldn't see it all, a smattering of maths & philosophy mixed into an overlong and pretty boring 'students journey' plot. Why do people like it so much?

redthrowaway 15y ago
The first time I tried reading Anathem, I couldn't get into it and put it down for a year. Then, while travelling (read: lots of time on my hands), I picked it up again and couldn't put it down until I finished it. The richness of the world and the pacing of the plot (past page 300 or so) as the mystery is revealed is gripping. I didn't think it was an earth-shattering book, but it was certainly a great read. In the same vein, Ender's Game is just another book about a child prodigy/outcast who saves the day. It seemed far more profound when I was 13 than it did upon re-reading. Some books aren't revolutionary; they're just a good read. I haven't read Snow Crash or Diamond Age, but I'm about a quarter of the way through Cryptonomicon right now and it's starting to get good. I find Stephensen's books tend to start off slowly then quickly pick up steam.

r00fus 15y ago

Agreed... I read Cryptonomicon first, then Diamond Age (my favorite from him) then Snow Crash, and I found the third book a lot less mature and dated (I read it in 2001, almost a decade after it was published). Diamond Age painted a very deep and rich tapestry of future vision.

Roboprog 15y ago
I found Cryptonomicon a painfully long slog. I enjoyed it overall, but only read it because of having read Snow Crash and Zodiac first. I love Stephenson's humor with technical issues. I suppose I should read some of his longer, er, later books.