Just for my own notes, I finished The Confusion this week. I think I liked it better than Quicksilver. And it's made me want to get and read the next book.
I think one of Stephenson's goals was not to change events (as will be obvious from one specific example in TSOTW). But he does show how things might have been different in some regard, and does have some very interesting and informative things to say about the origins of the system of the world.
Also, TBS clearly takes place in an alternate world where places like Qwglmia exist :-)
It also seems to be a prequel to Cryptonomicon, which throws interesting light on the nature of the gold in the jungle, so I'm not sure it can be judged separately.
Point taken, though. For some reason I always forget about Qwglm, which appears in this series and also in Cryptonomicon.
Being informative is, actually, one of the big draws of Fraser's books. I'll never be able to read Kipling the same way again. Fraser's view of historical events really breathes life into them.
Stephenson's view of world finance is similarly interesting. And, after The Confusion, I find myself wondering about his description of monads. Is this really how they were viewed by Leibniz? If so, that's one of the most interesting things I've read about historical scientific views.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-17 01:52 pm (UTC)Also, TBS clearly takes place in an alternate world where places like Qwglmia exist :-)
It also seems to be a prequel to Cryptonomicon, which throws interesting light on the nature of the gold in the jungle, so I'm not sure it can be judged separately.
Oooops!
Date: 2006-01-17 01:53 pm (UTC)Re: Oooops!
Date: 2006-01-17 02:05 pm (UTC)Being informative is, actually, one of the big draws of Fraser's books. I'll never be able to read Kipling the same way again. Fraser's view of historical events really breathes life into them.
Stephenson's view of world finance is similarly interesting. And, after The Confusion, I find myself wondering about his description of monads. Is this really how they were viewed by Leibniz? If so, that's one of the most interesting things I've read about historical scientific views.
Re: Oooops!
Date: 2006-01-17 02:42 pm (UTC)