purchased the latest Neal Stephenson book yesterday

Wow! this is good, had me weeping twice in the 1st 100 pages. The idea of WASBI ( Waterhouse and Shaftoe Brain Institute) slayed me.
Reading it in small chunks to drag it out.
Cheers,
Jasper.

Does it have a name? Touchstone?

NS has been mentioned on a few reading threads recently where many of us have given up on him. Interesting to hear that you're enjoying this one.

It's called Fall or Dodge in Hell. I'm tempted by the pretty cover and by liking some of his pre-Seveneves books but am trying to resist.

I'm with >3 Sakerfalcon: on this, for the reasons >2 reading_fox: mentions: I'm one of those who felt finished with NS.
I might just be tempted, if positive reviews stacks up.

I finished it. The 1st half was terrific, the 2nd half was a generic fantasy Grail quest that has been done better by many others.

I give it 3 stars.

Cheers,
Jasper.

>5 Jasper:

I found that the things I liked about Stephenson's books were the concepts. I all but one of his books, the one with the good ending being REAMDE, I found the endings disappointing but, until Seveneves I had thought the book worth reading despite the ending.

It will be a while before I venture back to him. I have so many great reads queued up at the moment I am not thinking of taking a risk on a potential dud.

>6 pgmcc: Really? I thought Cryptonomicon was genius. I have little memory of the ending, but the writing and vision - a bravura performance!

This has been discussed before, but I do agree that Cryptonomicon is very good. That being said there are long passages that I skipped on every one of my three, I believe, reads of the book.
I can see how that is not everyone’s definition of a fantastic book, but I’m quite forgiving ;-)

>7 stellarexplorer:
Cryptonomicon was the first Stephenson I read. It was a strong recommendation from two friends. I enjoyed it but was not overwhelmed. I still went on to read more of his books and my favourite is Snowcrash.

The things that disappointed me about Cryptonomicon included,
1. His creation of a totally unnecessary race inhabiting islands off the west coast of Scotland.
2. The book descending into a mere treasure hunt at the end. There was so much great stuff in the rest of the book I felt it was a dreadful let-down to turn out all that was happening was a mad dash for some gold. That left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I felt if had wasted the rest of the book.

Some Stephenson books have riveted me and others just dragged. I guessed the ending of Anathem long before it came, and wasn't that thrilled about getting there. A reviewer of this new one wrote that somewhere in this 900-page book there's a really good 600-page book. (Actually I felt the same way about Donna Tartt's The Goldfinch.) Anyway, I'll probably read it, so I'm dodging spoilers.

>10 Meredy: I felt the same way about The Goldfinch, and for the life of me I still cannot understand how it won the Pulitzer.

I'll probably give Stephenson a go at some point, but he can wait a bit longer.

>9 pgmcc: Your problem is that you have a better memory than I do! ;)

I loved Snow Crash too.

I have yet to read a book written by a non-Scandinavian that features Scandinavia and manages to get even one thing right, even down to place names, which should be easy to research. Because of that I’m pretty used to make a wide allowance for artistic license.
And always assume that ”facts” on other places are dead wrong as well.
Which makes it easier to enjoy Stephenson’s thought experiments, I’m sure.

>13 Busifer: I know what you mean. Knowing something can really destroy a story.

I have never read a newspaper article about anything I know something about that got everything correct.

>13 Busifer: The current fashion for "Nordic Noir" must be a minefield of potential pain for you, them! :-/

>15 -pilgrim-: I just don't read it. Any of it. I tend not to read any fiction the claims to be set in some kind of "present", for various reasons.

>10 Meredy: and >11 clamairy: - Raising my hand about the length of The Goldfinch.

My favorite Stephenson book was Reamde. I got caught up in the story and enjoyed it very much, but also thought it was longer than necessary.

I picked up a copy of the new Stephenson today. It’s long. Maybe I’ll make it my vacation book.

>18 stellarexplorer: I for one will be very interested to hear what you think of it.

>19 Sakerfalcon: Thanks - I look forward to reporting back, but given the length and my vacation being in August, it may be at the end of the summer.

Please refund my $35.00. Usually adore NS, but this one was a complete and utter bust. For a more complete trashing, see my review.

What was so awful about Seveneves. I loved it. I admit to some bias in that my maiden name was "Dinan", so having 1/7 of the population being Dinans didn't bother me at all. My family was awesome--I had seven brothers and sisters, four boys and four girls, and my parents were great. The overall adventure was terrific, and the idea of all people being from just seven women was fantastic. I just bought Fall and I haven't received it yet, but I am really looking forward to it. I don't mind a new grail adventure. Can there really be too many?

>5 Jasper: Jasper, please tell me some other good grail versions, or direct me to a source, could you? I know it is a presumptuous request.

>22 sallypursell: For me, at least, it's that I have less and less patience with the apparent lack of editing. He goes off for pages and pages on something that doesn't add to any of the characters, nor to the story. Anyone else had been forced to straighten up the story, but not NS. It's as he's self-published. His ability to not end a story without having to depend on deux ex machina manoeuvres isn't enamouring, either.

I enjoyed Seveneves well enough, in the end, but on the way there I spent a lot of time just staring at the pages with a feeling of incredulity. I've read a lot of sf, it's my favourite genre. One of the reasons for it is that I enjoy the thought experiments, and the discussion on how societies etc work. But Seveneves was just a bit over the top, for me.

(I remember reading The Diamond Age, back when, and thinking it was a great book all the way until the ending, when it became a huge disappointment. Still, I have reread it. But then came Cryptonomicon, also reread multiple times, but some scenes that went on for pages and pages was just too much, without adding anything. And he has continued in that style. Somehow I have higher expectations of him, I expect him to evolve.)

I liked Seveneves a lot, but thought the last (far future) section would have worked better as its own book, expanded and given more room to breathe as it were, thus creating a duology.

I'll have to look into Fall, as I loved the characters in Reamde. (Though I've almost entirely forgotten it by now.)

I have a number of problems with Seveneves. These are:

Technology: Stephenson was too labourious when describing the technology that has been around for decades and his claims for newer technologies capabilities, nano in particular, was too ambitious. He was slipping claims for nano-technology into the story under the smoke-screen of tried and tested technology. This would have been great if nano-technology was not such a core element of how the characters did what they did.

Coincidence: The fact that the three groups we followed led to the three groups that we met in the future was just too much coincidence to take.

Future element: As someone else said, this could have been a totally different book. The first half dealt with how we might deal with the catastrophe of the moon breaking up. That was one story and could have ended the book leaving the reader with the possibility of imagining who survived, how they survived, and who did not survive and why. As it is he chose to spoon feed the reader with a tale of what happened for no good reason I could see. The only explanation is that he wanted to bring the reader to the ending that he had obviously thought was great and wanted to make a big thing about. He obviously forgot his own invention, Diax's Rake.

Contrivance: It was too contrived and convenient for the story teller to have the president override protocols and escape to the space station.



That is how it is. This is where I make my stand. This is my final word.

Of course, if you thing otherwise I am willing to discuss it over a pint.

>25 pgmcc: I would have to re-read Seveneves to answer all of your specific problems with it, and I have too much to read right now. I will say that I don't dislike the excursiveness--it reminds me of the similar ones in Moby Dick, which I read too young and hated, and then tried again 20 years later and loved. Now I re-read it occasionally, and I continue to love it. I found the excursions to be charming; I giggled when reading the sequence in Criptonomicon about the bicycle-chain, and I was enthralled with the long technological parts of Seveneves.

It is possible that my science and mathematical knowledge is not up to the topic, so that I cannot filter our the possible, but I do have a degree in biology, and I worked as a nurse for 40 years in a tertiary hospital where I was exposed constantly to research. I also read journals, and I understand most of what I read. Anyway, it doesn't matter--I enjoy it tremendously. My father designed the electronic devices which were test equipment for the Apollo and Gemini missions (most of them, anyway, and was pleased to teach me when young how to solder, and Morse code, and other fascinating stuff. I was a little better prepared than most kids for high-school and college sciences, and I didn't find calculus too much for me. I know I was simply fortunate, and I am not doing any kind of bragging. I am simply going through the reasons why I might not be fooled, versus why I might be.

I completely agree with your statement about coincidence.

As to Diax's Rake; confirmation bias and related fallacies are some of the ways good, thinking, people fall into logical error. Unfortunately, just because you wish it to be true, does not imply that something isn't true either. The problem is that not all things are subject to simple tests of truth.