The trouble with Stephenson’s books is that he tends to make a lot of stuff up and insert it into the exposition in such a way that it’s difficult to tell it from the trustworthy material. Cryptonomicon and The Baroque Cycle aren’t so bad about this, but someone who’d, say, learned most of their neoplatonic philosophy from Anathem might come out the other side with some very strange ideas indeed—even if they’d thought, and bothered, to look up the real-world cognates of all his academic smeerps.
Charles Stross is another author with similar habits—although his style is more referential, which makes it essential to keep a laptop with a Wikipedia tab open next to the chair you’re reading in, but ends up drawing a somewhat clearer line between science and fiction.
And in the good direction, you have someone like Peter Watts, who sometimes includes appendixes explaining exactly what science he’s based his speculation on.
Or Greg Egan, who publishes on-line appendixes to his books explaining, say, how Riemannian Thermodynamics would work. With equations and graphics. (Labeled axes!) And video simulations. The appendixes themselves have appendixes!
Well, he did the same thing with earlier novels, The Clockwork Rocket is just the one that came to mind since it’s the latest.
But I found his other novels (at least those where such extra material would make sense) similar in style. I’d call it “unusual physics porn”—no literary masterpieces, but fun to read if you’re into that kind of stuff.
Do you dislike his other work, too, or is there something about this one in particular you disliked?
Come to think of it, I suppose lesswrong is one of the few places where it might be reasonable to assume that someone links directly to a Trope Namer because they’re more familiar with it than the trope.
But as a general rule, because I’m against (and susceptible to) tab explosions.
The trouble with Stephenson’s books is that he tends to make a lot of stuff up and insert it into the exposition in such a way that it’s difficult to tell it from the trustworthy material. Cryptonomicon and The Baroque Cycle aren’t so bad about this, but someone who’d, say, learned most of their neoplatonic philosophy from Anathem might come out the other side with some very strange ideas indeed—even if they’d thought, and bothered, to look up the real-world cognates of all his academic smeerps.
Charles Stross is another author with similar habits—although his style is more referential, which makes it essential to keep a laptop with a Wikipedia tab open next to the chair you’re reading in, but ends up drawing a somewhat clearer line between science and fiction.
And in the good direction, you have someone like Peter Watts, who sometimes includes appendixes explaining exactly what science he’s based his speculation on.
Or Greg Egan, who publishes on-line appendixes to his books explaining, say, how Riemannian Thermodynamics would work. With equations and graphics. (Labeled axes!) And video simulations. The appendixes themselves have appendixes!
Indeed. On the other hand, The Clockwork Rocket was a rubbish novel qua novel, so there’s such a thing as taking it too far.
Well, he did the same thing with earlier novels, The Clockwork Rocket is just the one that came to mind since it’s the latest.
But I found his other novels (at least those where such extra material would make sense) similar in style. I’d call it “unusual physics porn”—no literary masterpieces, but fun to read if you’re into that kind of stuff.
Do you dislike his other work, too, or is there something about this one in particular you disliked?
No, just that one. I liked “Crystal Nights” or Permutation City a lot.
Can I just say I experienced mind-boggling surprise (and a corresponding increase in my respect for you) when I realized that was not a TVTropes link?
Why would that be worth an increase in respect?
Come to think of it, I suppose lesswrong is one of the few places where it might be reasonable to assume that someone links directly to a Trope Namer because they’re more familiar with it than the trope.
But as a general rule, because I’m against (and susceptible to) tab explosions.