Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle

Cafe Society
61

[QUOTE=Frylock]
I’m confused by this thread. How is The Baroque Cycle (and Cryptonomicon ftm) not an example of science fiction?

It’s fiction that explores the effect of scientific advancement on the human condition. It’s fiction a main point of which is to philosophize about technology.

Aren’t these the major identifiying characteristics of science fiction? (Well, that’s what I learned way back in high school but have things changed? Or was I misinformed?)

-FrL-
[/QUOTE]

There’s also at least one character who is immortal, and can raise the dead among possible other tricks. A second one is identified in the Baroque Cycle, and

it’s possible that Otto von Hoek and Dappa have a cameo in Cryptonomicon. The reader who avoids being bludgeoned or bemused into a state of passive reception will find the books, especially Cryptonomicon, chock full of tiny clues that something truly bizarre and science fictiony is at work in the novels. They are science fiction both in the technical and practical sense of that term, Stephenson just isn’t showing all the cards upfront Asimov- or Heinlein-style. It’s a more subtle way of doing things, and just off the cuff I’d call them the hardest sci fi I’ve ever read.

62

Frylock–dunno, I’ve never read Dune. I’ve never been a big sci-fi fan, although I like Ray Bradbury a lot, and I really enjoyed Feed. I read the Hitchhiker’s Guide about 2 years ago, just to see what all the fuss was about here, and it didn’t stick with me. It was ok, but not anything I’d call great (I think, like many books, the reader’s response to it depends upon when it is read.) But you didn’t ask me which sci-fi books I liked, so I’ll stop now. :slight_smile:

Grossbottom–I’m taking it that the immortal character is Enoch; fair enough. I am intrigued by him, but he’s onstage precious little.

If BC is sci-fi, then is the Pullman trilogy also sci-fi? This reminds me of that, to a certain extent–a rich world, full of changing technology that does not effect the man on the street one bit (so far), colorful characters, some of whom can time travel, sexual tension(although it’s hardly tension with Stephenson), small group of people with specialized knowledge vying against an ignorant world etc.

Re the definition of sci-fi stated above: isn’t it rather generic? All fiction is about change. True, sci-fi concentrates on the changes tech brings, but I haven’t seen much tech or much change. I see the Royal Society experimenting a great deal (and in great detail) and now I’m learning all about the underbelly of 17th century Europe–it involved lots of shit. And rats. There’s a paper thin plot, I just don’t see much writing re the impact of Leibniz or Hooke or Newton on any of these characters so far (except Daniel and the impact is not due to their developing technology but more on their political and cultural roles and their internal competition).

I have no beef about calling it sci-fi for whatever reason (the publisher’s, the author’s, the appropriate definition), I am just wondering when it becomes sci-fi for this particular book. I’m not looking for little green men or spaceships–I just want to see something that fits the generous definition laid out by Frylock.

Maybe this’ll help: right now, it reads more like a James Michener* novel with one eccentric character than anything I’ve read that was labelled sci-fi. Does that help?
*in terms of sprawling backdrops, quasi-cardboard characters, thin plot, emphasis on descriptive passages etc. NS is a better writer than JM, IMO.

63

[QUOTE=Grossbottom]
There’s also at least one character who is immortal, and can raise the dead among possible other tricks. A second one is identified in the Baroque Cycle,
[/quote]

Funny thing is, I don’t take these to be very good indicators that it should be treated as science fiction. These are more like elements of fantasy.

-FrL-

64

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]

Re the definition of sci-fi stated above: isn’t it rather generic? All fiction is about change. True, sci-fi concentrates on the changes tech brings, but I haven’t seen much tech or much change. I see the Royal Society experimenting a great deal (and in great detail) and now I’m learning all about the underbelly of 17th century Europe–it involved lots of shit. And rats. There’s a paper thin plot, I just don’t see much writing re the impact of Leibniz or Hooke or Newton on any of these characters so far (except Daniel and the impact is not due to their developing technology but more on their political and cultural roles and their internal competition).

[/quote]

Well… lemme finish the thing, then I’ll respond to this.

So… I’ll see you in a couple of years. :stuck_out_tongue:

-FrL-

(I read about a third of Quicksilver a couple of years ago and enjoyed it but had to stop. I am now reading it at the rate of a few pages a day. I’m on page 65. Seriously: I’ll see you in a couple of years. :eek: )

65

[QUOTE=Frylock]
Well… lemme finish the thing, then I’ll respond to this.

So… I’ll see you in a couple of years. :stuck_out_tongue:

-FrL-

(I read about a third of Quicksilver a couple of years ago and enjoyed it but had to stop. I am now reading it at the rate of a few pages a day. I’m on page 65. Seriously: I’ll see you in a couple of years. :eek: )
[/QUOTE]

Well, like the tortoise and the hare, you may eventually win this race. My interest in Eliza and Jack is paling; only Enoch coming back “on stage” has repiqued my interest. I am about halfway through Quicksilver. I don’t know if I’ll finish it (which is a deathknell to books for me–books I like I burn through). We’ll see. I am working most of the holiday weekend, so my pace will be slower anyway.

66

Not apropos to whether they’re science fiction or not, but am I the only one who found the books funny?

67

I found them hilarious as well, some genuine laugh out loud moments.

68

I thought they had incredibly funny moments. When Jack crashes (literally) the party, for instance…that whole scene is a mix of hilarious and thrilling.

69

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I don’t think the series is really plot driven. It’s idea driven. It’s a look at how people adapt to rapid technological change and what happens when our way of looking at the world changes.
[/QUOTE]

If I was to sum up the point of the Cycle, it would be this - it is the author’s answer to Guns, germs and Steel - mainly to answer the basic question - why Europe? Why did Europe (and especially the Dutch and British) “get” all that “stuff” - advanced science, commerce, workable democracy, lack of theocracy and medievalism, a functioning economy?

To the authour, all of these things are profoundly related to each other and to the events at around this time - the founding of the Royal Society, the defeat of French imperialism, the creation of party politics and constitutional monarchy, the absorption of the energies let loose by the Reformation, religious tolerance, free speech, the scientific revolution out of alchemy, overseas commerce. All of these involve revolutions that build on revolutions in other areas.

Hence the image he invokes of a ‘reverse shipwreck’ - he likens the history of Europe in this period to a bunch of people struggling in the water with a lot of wreakage in the middle of a storm, who somehow manage, while fighting for survival against the elements and with each other, to build a working ship out of the garbage, and design the instruments to navagate it … just how this was done is really the subject of this series.

70

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
When does it get interesting? I don’t want to spoil it for anyone who hasn’t read it yet, but I am waiting for several things to become clear: the exact purpose of Enoch, why we should care at all about Daniel and when o when does the excess verbiage stop?
[/quote]

Some excitement is coming up pretty quick; have you gotten to the flashbacks where Enoch starts remembering things in the past, and Daniel starts formulating his memories on Issac Newton? Murder, Plague, and Fire and right around the corner. And then once you get to Jack Shaftoe, you’ll get all kinds of action, though the excess verbiage never really stops; the style is indulgent.

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
IOW, is it worth it to keep slogging through this --will it get good? Good as in some type of PLOT, with some sort of ACTION, and some CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT?
[/quote]

I really like this series - I’ve read it three times. Certainly, there’s quite a lot of plot (though it takes quite a while for some of it to get to its ultimate resolution), and a lot of character development.

71

[QUOTE=Frylock]
Funny thing is, I don’t take these to be very good indicators that it should be treated as science fiction. These are more like elements of fantasy.

-FrL-
[/QUOTE]

I agree, but Stephenson doesn’t write fantasy. Root isn’t magic. There are a number of references to Enoch’s cigar box in Cryptonomicon, particularly in Bobby Shaftoe’s morphine haze. Spoilers ahoy:

Bobby dreams of golden light pouring out of it, and of human body parts beginning to animate when the light touches them. To paraphrase Bobby, whatever is in the cigar box is to morphine what a common prostitute is to Glory. Later when Enoch is shot in the chest, he drifts into a coma, “mumbling something about cigars”. As he is dying, Rudy von Hacklheber (of the Baroque Cycle Hacklhebers) wanders off and returns with the cigar box. Enoch “dies,” but walks out of the clinic moments after the doctor is taken out for coffee. Whatever is in that box is almost certainly what is used to
MEGA DAMN BAROQUE CYCLE SPOILER DO NOT READ IT

resurrect Daniel in the Baroque Cycle.

It’s some sort of technological artifact, and its story is quietly and minimally interwoven through all four novels. That’s science fiction as hell, and I think it’s quite awesome in its subtlety. And now I’ll go apply for an autism diagnosis.

72

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Well, I got that they were roommates, I meant that his significance to the plot seems to lie in his being the son of Drake Waterhouse and unlike his siblings in worldview. He sees the rivalries etc, but remains passive (so far). I haven’t gotten to the full details of the feud as yet–it’s been alluded to, and Oldenberg is being friendly to Leibniz who is w/o a patron. And there are A LOT of pirates in Cape Cod bay. And that’s about it for now. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Daniel isn’t the great scientist that Liebniz or Newton are, but his skill and use end up being in organizing and influencing people. Its tough to get into any more - Daniel kind of fades from the story in the Confusion but System of the World is very Daniel-heavy, and he really comes into his own.

73

One Daniel note:

[spoiler]The ending of Quicksilver - where Daniel is tricked into being cut for the stone - is one of the most effective and creepy bits of writing I thought - particularly where Hooke explains that it is exactly his lack of compassion which makes him suitable to perform the (excrutiating) operation: “scream if you must, but try not to go mad …”

literally made me squirm. [/spoiler]

74

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Well, like the tortoise and the hare, you may eventually win this race. My interest in Eliza and Jack is paling; only Enoch coming back “on stage” has repiqued my interest. I am about halfway through Quicksilver. I don’t know if I’ll finish it (which is a deathknell to books for me–books I like I burn through). We’ll see. I am working most of the holiday weekend, so my pace will be slower anyway.
[/QUOTE]

You’re at the point where Liebniz is showing them the mines, right? You’ve got to stay in at least until Jack hits Paris and “crashes the party.”

75

[QUOTE=Grossbottom]
There’s also at least one character who is immortal, and can raise the dead among possible other tricks. A second one is identified in the Baroque Cycle, and

it’s possible that Otto von Hoek and Dappa have a cameo in Cryptonomicon.

[/QUOTE]

What. Whut? I’m in the middle of re-reading the Cycle, but it’s been a while since I read Cryptonomicon. Please remind me.

76

[QUOTE=Pork Rind]
What. Whut? I’m in the middle of re-reading the Cycle, but it’s been a while since I read Cryptonomicon. Please remind me.
[/QUOTE]

This one isn’t mine, I found it on the internets while trying to track down Anathem info. I’d love to take credit for it though, because it’s precisely the sort of thing you’d miss while staggering through NS’s prose.

[spoiler]Remember at the end of Crypto, the conspiracy between Rudy von Hacklheber, Bischoff the German sub commander, Otto the Finn, Bobby and Enoch? Bischoff takes off in the advanced German sub, and the plan is to rendezvous in the South Pacific. Which they do. Rudy and Otto disembark their civilian transport onto the sub with three other men and we get a description of them from Bischoff’s POV:

“The other three men he has never seen before: a Negro with dreadlocks; a brown-skinned, Indian-looking fellow; and a red-headed European.”

Now who was last seen on the high seas, involved with Enoch Root secret society shit? Van Hoek and Dappa. Those three men are never mentioned again in Cryptonomicon. Ever. They’re just sort of…mentioned there, all by themselves, with no rhyme or reason.

And when Bischoff questions Rudy about why they are three weeks late:

“We were dismasted, and lost three men, and my left eye, and two of Otto’s fingers, and a few other items, going around Cape Horn,” Rudy says apologetically. “Our cigars got a little wet. It played havoc with our schedule.”

The cigars again. :cool:
[/spoiler]

77

[QUOTE=Grossbottom]
This one isn’t mine, I found it on the internets while trying to track down Anathem info. I’d love to take credit for it though, because it’s precisely the sort of thing you’d miss while staggering through NS’s prose.
[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, now I remember. Thanks!

78

[QUOTE=Grossbottom]
This one isn’t mine, I found it on the internets while trying to track down Anathem info. I’d love to take credit for it though, because it’s precisely the sort of thing you’d miss while staggering through NS’s prose.
[/quote]

Very cool. I never would have noticed. :slight_smile:

Got any other tid-bits for us?

79

Crap! I never caught that! Holy Crap!

80

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Not apropos to whether they’re science fiction or not, but am I the only one who found the books funny?
[/QUOTE]
I’ve only read *Cryptonomicon *so far, and I was surprised at how funny it was, because none of the reviews I had read mentioned that.