The frame story in Quicksilver is not nearly robust enough to support all the flashbacks heaped upon it. We begin with one character, who is interesting but who departs the story rather quickly. We then begin to follow Mr. Waterhouse. His frame story is interesting, but his flashbacks are pure exposition, many without wider meaning to the story. It is not until page 331 we finally begin to see the protagonist act as anything other than a cipher and the reasons for his trip in the frame story support the flashbacks.
Neal, come on. I know that you can write a fast paced novel. Snow Crash and Zodiac proved that you can write well and create interesting characters in the midst of an interesting plot. I recognize that this is going to be a long process. You've got three books, each broken into sections, but even Tolkien, king of huge three part books, made sure that plot and characters advanced together.
This problem is made worse by my suddenly renewed interest in the novel that occurred as soon as the protagonist began to act. I worry that Neal's editor no longer has enough power to make him write a good clean book. Ideally though I'll finish before I feel compelled to write another update on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Are you the same Cameron Domer who demolished Infinite Jest in under a week? Because perhaps I've clicked on the blog of a Cameron Domer who quails at the prospect of something more involved than Warhammer 40K mass market fiction.
Stephenson doesn't write easy-to-read, fast paced novels. Even Snow Crash, arguably his most frenetic piece, takes plenty of time to align Sumerian myth with hacker principles, in long-winded academic style. The Baroque Cycle is a single novel, as Lord of the Rings is a single novel, broken down into pieces for easier sales. The "frame story," as you put it, won't reconvene until the beginning of the third book. If that's too extended and inaccessible, well, you're missing out on good honest historical fiction.
At the very least better than that Age of Unreason bilge.
--I can't believe I have to defend the Stephenson to you of all people. I call thee Philistine!
hza
A sane person would have tossed infinate jest out the window after 5 pages. Never has more praise been made over someone's literary masterbation. I recall reading it that fast due to a bet of some type.
As for Quicksilver I am enjoying it hugely, to the point that I'm taking the time now to savor it. But that doesn't change the fact that a better job could have been done, early on, to make me care. It's not the level of complexity, as very little in that section was complex. Neither is it the highbrow nature of the material, as it really isn't.
I feel that you are taking this to defensivly, it's a very good book, and I'm enjoying reading it very much... BUT it would not have suffered for some tweaking to begin with.
--To critique something does not imply an inability to love it.
cd
Defensive?! ME?!? Outrageous. Jerk.
Well, yeah, I am being defensive. Stephenson and Wallace are the two best writers I've had access to over the last seven years or so, and I get nervous when their credentials come under question. It was difficult to see any indication that you were enjoying Quicksilver from your posts. Glad you did, though.
(I'm not going to challenge you on Infinite Jest being questionable, if only because Wallace takes inaccessible to new and terrifying places with his writing, particularly IJ. I still believe he's the shit, though.)
--Chinese nuclear posture? Cripes.
hza
Post a Comment