OT Book: Cryptonomicon
Jason G
Besides the rather abrupt and annoying flipping back and forth between time
periods and characters (with similar names), I spent three full pages slogging
through an explanation of a mathematical formula that went into tedious detail
about bicycle chains and sprocket teeth.
Please tell me this gets better. I understand that Stephenson is trying to
explain mathematical concepts to the reader. But if understanding various
mathematical formulae are going to get integral to the plot, I'm throwing this
thing in the garbage right now, because I've spent weeks trying to do that at
work, and I'm frigging sick of thinking with that area of my brain when I sit
down for an hour's reading of an evening.
--
Jason G
[Sig closed for remodeling. We apologize for the inconvenience.]
Etaoin Shrdlu
Jason G <jrgusenet@xx_REMOVE_x_THIS_xx_PART_xxx_x_yahoo.com> wrote:
>Okay, so I'm giving this tome a go this week. So far I am very not hooked.
>Besides the rather abrupt and annoying flipping back and forth between time
>periods and characters (with similar names), I spent three full pages slogging
>through an explanation of a mathematical formula that went into tedious detail
>about bicycle chains and sprocket teeth.
IIRC it's a slow starter, but then develops its own momentum. (Besides,
there are no reading police saying you have to read every last word of
every book.)
I liken reading Stephenson to eating fruitcake - it's dense and just a
little goes a very long way, but there are nice tasty bits that make it
all worthwhile. I loved his exposition on the proper way to eat Cap'n
Crunch cereal, for example.
Also for those who like long-haired gentlemen, check out his picture
on his latest - rroowrrr!
Leslie
ra...@panix.com
Steve Lamb
wrote:
> Okay, so I'm giving this tome a go this week. So far I am very not hooked.
> Besides the rather abrupt and annoying flipping back and forth between time
> periods and characters (with similar names), I spent three full pages
> slogging through an explanation of a mathematical formula that went into
> tedious detail about bicycle chains and sprocket teeth.
Almost sounds like it is the geek equivolant of Tom Clancy. Never
understood why any would want to read his books after I sat down to read one
and 20 pages in was treated to a 3 page essay on the flight history of the
C-130. I don't need to know that for the story. If I wanted to know that I'd
turn on TDC and watch Wings when they got around to it. :/
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Graham
> Okay, so I'm giving this tome a go this week. So far I am very not hooked.
Persist.
> Besides the rather abrupt and annoying flipping back and forth between time
> periods and characters (with similar names),
Keep an eye on those similar names. In case you haven't figured it out
yet, eventually all the dots get connected.
> I spent three full pages slogging through an explanation of a mathematical formula
> that went into tedious detail about bicycle chains and sprocket teeth.
> Please tell me this gets better. I understand that Stephenson is trying to
> explain mathematical concepts to the reader.
I think it would be fairer to say he's providing the concepts for those
readers who would feel half the plot was missing if he left them out.
Don't fret over them.
> But if understanding various mathematical formulae are going to get integral to
> the plot,
I don't think so.
> I'm throwing this thing in the garbage right now, because I've spent weeks trying
> to do that at work, and I'm frigging sick of thinking with that area of my brain
> when I sit down for an hour's reading of an evening.
Let the maths slide gently past and enjoy the plot.
LinuxLibrarian
Yes, it does get better, and skimming the math parts is quite okay.
Hang in there!! :-)
--LL
stePH
> Jason G wrote:
>
>>Okay, so I'm giving this tome a go this week. So far I am very not hooked.
>
>
> Persist.
>
>
>>Besides the rather abrupt and annoying flipping back and forth between time
>>periods and characters (with similar names),
>
>
> Keep an eye on those similar names. In case you haven't figured it out
> yet, eventually all the dots get connected.
>
There's a reason for those similar names -- an alternate title for this
story might be "Strange Attractors*" as most of the present-day
characters are grandchildren of the WWII-period characters.
I'm over halfway through it and finding it a page-turner, only stopping
when my eyes get tired.
stePH
--
* the U Totem album STRANGE ATTRACTORS is composed around a short story
involving people and objects that keep turning up in each other's lives,
covering a period from 1957 through 2012.
Jason G
>Keep an eye on those similar names. In case you haven't figured it out
>yet, eventually all the dots get connected.
I get the idea that they are ancestors/descendants, but since this book has so
far been so heinously tedious, I've been reading it in small chunks, so I keep
forgetting which Waterhouse and Shaftoe and whatever else is which.
>Let the maths slide gently past and enjoy the plot.
I'm going to have to do that. Because last night, after that hideous
bicycle-chain digression that is apparently an attempt to explain the Enigma
machine, I realized that I was sitting at the dinner table with my head in my
hands, staring furiously at the text and concentrating like mad trying to
understand the rambling logic, which is exactly what I had been doing minus
the dinner table for the last nine hours at work on an inherited program I'm
fixing, and I threw the book across the room.
It's infuriating. It's like every time a character in a book gets into a car,
having to read a detailed explanation of internal combustion and valve-timing,
followed by them getting into a boat and having to read a treatise on fluid
dynamics and hull design. I DON'T CARE. This ISN'T A TEXTBOOK. Apparently
Stephenson is so enamored of mathematics that he occasionally forgets he's
writing a novel and goes off on a mathematical masturbation jag for pages and
pages. I've read over two hundred pages and I don't give a shit about any of
the characters.
This from a person who read Small Gods in about three days and made himself
late to work staying up late turning pages. I am very disappointed so far.
This book is in dire need of an editor with a large machete.
Jason G
>
>His earlier novels were better, especially _Snow Crash_ and its distance
>sequel _Diamond Age_. _Zodiac_ is fun too, and even _Big U_ is fun in an
>amateur way.
Which are what got me interested in him. I loved the first three and read
them in days. But this book is just pissing me off so far.
Graham
> >His earlier novels were better, especially _Snow Crash_ and its distance
> >sequel _Diamond Age_. _Zodiac_ is fun too, and even _Big U_ is fun in an
> >amateur way.
Jason G wrote:
> Which are what got me interested in him. I loved the first three and read
> them in days. But this book is just pissing me off so far.
That's interesting, because I read Cryptonomicon first, loved it, then
read Snow Crash, thought it was good, but not as good, and then
struggled through Zodiac and decided it was a load of twaddle.
Cheryl Greer
jrgusenet@xx_REMOVE_x_THIS_xx_PART_xxx_x_yahoo.com (Jason G) wrote:
>
> It's infuriating. It's like every time a character in a book gets into a
> car,
> having to read a detailed explanation of internal combustion and
> valve-timing,
> followed by them getting into a boat and having to read a treatise on fluid
> dynamics and hull design. I DON'T CARE. This ISN'T A TEXTBOOK.
Auuugh! Sounds rather like the experience I've been having reading
Jack Whyte's "Camulod Chronicles" (historically based King Arthur
books.) He's always bringing what little plot momentum there is to a
screeching halt with pages-long technical descriptions of sword-making,
or Roman garrison design.
At least sword-making is somewhat interesting. (But all the Roman
ass-kissing in these books needs to stop.) If I had a novel that kept
throwing math at me, I think I'd burn it and toast marshmallows over the
flames.
Cheryl
--
"The first thing you lose on a diet is brain mass."
--Margaret Cho
A.M. Kuchling
Jason G <jrgusenet@xx_REMOVE_x_THIS_xx_PART_xxx_x_yahoo.com> wrote:
> This from a person who read Small Gods in about three days and made himself
> late to work staying up late turning pages. I am very disappointed so far.
Pratchett's a better writer than Stephenson, though, and has gotten writing
fun page-turning books down to a science. (Whether you remember anything
from a Pratchett book a week later, um, well, ...)
> This book is in dire need of an editor with a large machete.
Current word in rec.arts.sf.written is that the sequel, _Quicksilver_, has
similar flaws. _Cryptonomicon_ is in my to-read pile, but I won't hesitate
to bail on it partway through.
My record for abandoning a book was David Foster Wallace's _Infinite Jest_;
I was irritated by the style after five pages, and tossed it onto the
discard pile after eleven. Has anyone ever given up on a book after fewer
pages?
--amk
Steve Lamb
wrote:
> late to work staying up late turning pages. I am very disappointed so far.
> This book is in dire need of an editor with a large machete.
Erm, how one gets from Stephenson to Pratchett in one sentence is beyond
me. Adams to Pratchett I can understand easily enough. Stephenson to Gibson
or Effeniger, sure. But Pratchett? o.O;
stePH
> In article <neWdnXUddNF...@speakeasy.net>, A.M. Kuchling says...
>
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:22:45 GMT,
>> Jason G <jrgusenet@xx_REMOVE_x_THIS_xx_PART_xxx_x_yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>This from a person who read Small Gods in about three days and made himself
>>>late to work staying up late turning pages. I am very disappointed so far.
>>
>>Pratchett's a better writer than Stephenson, though,
>
>
> Never mind.
>
I'm still not seeing the connection from CRYPTONOMICON to AMERICAN GODS.
stePH
--
NP: Echolyn, AS THE WORLD - "Settled Land"
stePH
> Oh dear... Cryptonomicon...
>
> It gets better in the middle. However, the ending sucks.
I won't consider that a spoiler, since it's about what I expect :P
> Stephenson can't write an ending to save his life.
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. It doesn't ruin the books for
me, though.
Morwen
(in message <3F9634FA...@alphalink.com.au>):
> Jason G wrote:
>> Okay, so I'm giving this tome a go this week. So far I am very not hooked.
>
> Persist.
Yes, persist. You can skim over all the math stuff.
>> Besides the rather abrupt and annoying flipping back and forth between time
>> periods and characters (with similar names),
>
> Keep an eye on those similar names. In case you haven't figured it out
> yet, eventually all the dots get connected.
And wondering how in the hell he was going to pull off connecting all those
dots was half the fun for me.
I read Snow Crash and Diamond Age first, so Cryptonomicon wasn't exactly what
I was expecting from the author, but I ended up loving it, too.
Morwen
Graham
> Erm, how one gets from Stephenson to Pratchett in one sentence is beyond
> me. Adams to Pratchett I can understand easily enough. Stephenson to Gibson
> or Effeniger, sure. But Pratchett? o.O;
I borrowed Cryptonomicon, Snowcrash and Zodiac from the same friend
whose Pratchett library I plunder.
Woof Ridge
> My record for abandoning a book was David Foster Wallace's _Infinite Jest_;
> I was irritated by the style after five pages, and tossed it onto the
> discard pile after eleven. Has anyone ever given up on a book after fewer
> pages?
>
>
where I gave up on Mrs. Dalloway. Just not my style at all...
Woof
--
WoofParty3 Weekend, the mid-atlantic's premier gathering of
bitter, barren childfree. Good food, good friends, no children!
November 8-10, 2003--email for an Evite!
stePH
> I might even need to read some Pratchett to
> clear my mental palate. Like a literary fruit sorbet.
... or pickled ginger, as I might think of it.
stePH
--
NP: King Crimson, ABSENT LOVERS - "Thela Hun Ginjeet"
mrfea...@aol.ccom
>
>In article <bn696l$u1mhj$1...@ID-198829.news.uni-berlin.de>, stePH says...
>>>
>>> Whoops, I meant to say American Gods, got Stephenson confused with Gaiman.
>>> Never mind.
>>I'm still not seeing the connection from CRYPTONOMICON to AMERICAN GODS.
>>
>
>Gods with American Gods. And I wasn't even drinking!
>
Maybe you should consider it! (Drinking, I mean.) :-)
Mary
mytoysdammit
"Jason G" <jrgusenet@xx_REMOVE_x_THIS_xx_PART_xxx_x_yahoo.com> >
> Please tell me this gets better. I understand that Stephenson is trying
to
> explain mathematical concepts to the reader. But if understanding various
> mathematical formulae are going to get integral to the plot, I'm throwing
this
> thing in the garbage right now, because I've spent weeks trying to do that
at
> work, and I'm frigging sick of thinking with that area of my brain when I
sit
> down for an hour's reading of an evening.
>
>
'Cryptonomicon' but is the first in a trilogy (gads, lucky booksellers don't
sell by the pound...).
I'm actually enjoying it except that because I've got a very wide ranging
background in history studies I keep guessing which future famous
scientist/inventor etc., each sprog that pops into the plot is fated to
become. I twigged to Ben Franklin as soon as I heard Ben, son of Josiah the
chandler, and picked up Isaac Newton as soon as we hit the drawings after
the stone on a string stunt. I'm interested to read on and see what he does
with all these characters assuming he's not just popping them in in an
attempt to show off his erudition.
This is either going to be a heckuva read or a monumental attempt at playing
voyeur at a bout of intellectual masturbation.
Not to mention that I'm getting royally fed up with publishing houses that
insist on cramming in excess of 1K pages between one set of covers by using
a miniscule serif typeface to do so.
'kat (it's a crapshoot as to whether my eyes cross or my brain fuses first
on this one.)
mrfea...@aol.ccom
Your description of Cryptonomicon is reminding me of my reaction to Iain Pears'
An Instance Of The Fingerpost. Long book, dragged in places, but at the end
when I'd read it all I said, Whoa. Look what he DID.
Mary
Who also read Cryptonomicon. Took a long time, but it didn't piss me off as
much as it seems to have done for Jason.
stePH
> "Jason G" <jrgusenet@xx_REMOVE_x_THIS_xx_PART_xxx_x_yahoo.com> >
>
>>Please tell me this gets better. I understand that Stephenson is trying
>
> to
>
>>explain mathematical concepts to the reader. But if understanding various
>>mathematical formulae are going to get integral to the plot, I'm throwing
>
> this
>
>>thing in the garbage right now, because I've spent weeks trying to do that
>
> at
>
>>work, and I'm frigging sick of thinking with that area of my brain when I
>
> sit
>
>>down for an hour's reading of an evening.
>>
>>
>
> Interesting. I'm currently reading 'Quicksilver' which relates to
> 'Cryptonomicon' but is the first in a trilogy (gads, lucky booksellers don't
> sell by the pound...).
>
> I'm actually enjoying it except that because I've got a very wide ranging
> background in history studies I keep guessing which future famous
> scientist/inventor etc., each sprog that pops into the plot is fated to
> become. I twigged to Ben Franklin as soon as I heard Ben, son of Josiah the
> chandler, and picked up Isaac Newton as soon as we hit the drawings after
> the stone on a string stunt. I'm interested to read on and see what he does
> with all these characters assuming he's not just popping them in in an
> attempt to show off his erudition.
>
I think I'm going to like _Quicksilver_. I'm nowhere near being the
student of history I'm sure you are, but I enjoy historical fiction that
uses real personages as characters.
Haven't read many but my favorite is Robert Anton Wilson's _Masks of the
Illuminati_ which features Albert Einstein, James Joyce and Aleister
Crowley. Another good one was Morris West's _The World is Made of
Glass_, about Carl Jung (also a minor character in _Masks_)
stePH
--
NP: U Totem (self-titled) - "One Nail Draws Another"
LinuxLibrarian
> In article <Jivlb.10526$Ec1.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> LinuxLibrarian says...
>
>
>>Yes, it does get better, and skimming the math parts is quite okay.
>>Hang in there!! :-)
>
>
> interested in a book.
That's why John Grisham, Danielle Steel, James Patterson and such ilk
got turned into America's "literary" giants of the "turn of the
millennium." Bleah!
>
> The other one in my To Read pile is Earth Abides. Someone please tell me that
> one is actually interesting. If I'm not hooked on Cryptonomicon in the next
> fifty pages, I'm shitcanning it.
You haven't read enough convincing testimony that it's worth the
perseverance, then? Tsk, tsk...
I might even need to read some Pratchett to
> clear my mental palate. Like a literary fruit sorbet.
>
Did I read correctly that you had paid real money for it? If so, that
might be one vote for using your *library* for trial of reading material
of uncertain appeal. But then you'd expect someone like
"LinuxLIBRARIAN" to say such... ;-)
Cheers, mate -- it's a free country.
--LL
mrfea...@aol.ccom
>
>Jason G wrote in alt.support.childfree:
>
>> In article
>> <Jivlb.10526$Ec1.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> LinuxLibrarian says...
>>
>>>Hang in there!! :-)
>>
>> I'm fascinated, but not if I'm bored. If I'm bored and concentrating
>> on something, I'd better be getting paid.
>>
>> The other one in my To Read pile is Earth Abides. Someone please tell
>> me that one is actually interesting. If I'm not hooked on
>> even need to read some Pratchett to clear my mental palate. Like a
>> literary fruit sorbet.
>>
>
Oh, those are my favorites. I love DEATH. In fact I talked a friend into
naming her cat DEATH OF RATS.
Mary
Steve Lamb
> I conflated Neil Stephenson, Neil Gaiman, Small Gods, and American Gods. My
> bad.
Well, not too bad. At least there I can see the train of thought and
understand it. :)
Bill Bradley
> On 2003-10-22, Jason G <jrgusenet@xx_REMOVE_x_THIS_xx_PART_xxx_x_yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Okay, so I'm giving this tome a go this week. So far I am very not hooked.
>>Besides the rather abrupt and annoying flipping back and forth between time
>>periods and characters (with similar names), I spent three full pages
>>slogging through an explanation of a mathematical formula that went into
>>tedious detail about bicycle chains and sprocket teeth.
>
>
> Almost sounds like it is the geek equivolant of Tom Clancy. Never
> understood why any would want to read his books after I sat down to read one
> and 20 pages in was treated to a 3 page essay on the flight history of the
> C-130. I don't need to know that for the story. If I wanted to know that I'd
> turn on TDC and watch Wings when they got around to it. :/
No, real geeks split between skipping those sections because he's
dumbing down things you already know... or read them to see if he got
them right.
Bill
mrfea...@aol.ccom
>
>In article <GXAlb.10990$Ec1.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>LinuxLibrarian says...
>>>I don't like working this hard to stay interested in a book.
>>
>>That's why John Grisham, Danielle Steel, James Patterson and such ilk
>>got turned into America's "literary" giants of the "turn of the
>>millennium." Bleah!
>
>
>I don't mind challenging prose. I do mind tedious, boring prose. Right now, I
>especially mind anything that makes me feel like I'm at work.
>
>I read to relax and to be entertained and interested. If it does neither, I'd
>rather not bother. I'm going to give it a try for a few dozen more pages and
>just skim over the tedious math exposition and see where it goes.
It's not binary, either. There's quite a range of writing available that is
neither tedious nor shallow. I mean, Patterson wrote the only book that I
actually closed after a couple of pages and put it in the recycle bin, and I
won't even bother trying Steele or Grisham.
But there are many, many options other than the formulaic potboilers like
Steele, Patterson, or Clancy, without wading through something that bores you.
Mind you, I finished Cryptonomicon, but when I saw Quicksilver in the store I
wasn't tempted to pick it up -- there are too many books that I *know* I want to
read to waste my time on marginal ones.
And what's marginal or bad to me might be someone else's cup of oolong, who
knows.
Mary
J.W.T. Meakin
> fun page-turning books down to a science. (Whether you remember anything
> from a Pratchett book a week later, um, well, ...)
This is good, because then the discrepancies from book to book won't
bother you.
> My record for abandoning a book was David Foster Wallace's _Infinite Jest_;
> I was irritated by the style after five pages, and tossed it onto the
> discard pile after eleven. Has anyone ever given up on a book after fewer
> pages?
Two paragraphs. Dickens, "Our Mutual Friend".
Bill.
mrfea...@aol.ccom
>
>> that bores you. Mind you, I finished Cryptonomicon, but when I saw
>> Quicksilver in the store I wasn't tempted to pick it up -- there are
>> too many books that I *know* I want to read to waste my time on
>> marginal ones.
>
Oh, my. I think I have at least a couple of hundred books at home that I
haven't read yet. I'm sort of compulsive about buying them. Also, I just got
back from Bouchercon, the mystery convention, and I brought about 20 more home.
I read mysteries, travel books (not guidebooks, stuff like Jan Morris and Bill
Bryson), history and occasional biographies. Also some that might be described
as political. I also like some hard-to-categorize stuff like Terry Pratchett
and Neil Gaiman, and I like books involving time-travel, which us generally
listed as sci-fi, but not always.
What I have little patience with is books that are poorly written - I've been
known to catch grammatical and spelling errors, which drives me nuts - and then
there are the James Pattersons who are unaware that sentences can contain more
than four words and chapters more than five sentences. I also dislike
characters that are poorly written -- I think you should usually have some sense
of a character as a person, but in the case of the really formulaic stuff you
don't.
So basically I like almost anything that's written well.
Mary
Steve Lamb
> That's why John Grisham, Danielle Steel, James Patterson and such ilk
> got turned into America's "literary" giants of the "turn of the
> millennium." Bleah!
Uh, your comment doesn't track. You seem to imply he said he wanted
nothing but an easy read. That is not what he said. He said that if he is
going to be concentrating and thinking about what he is reading one of two
conditions must be met:
a: getting paid
b: being entertained
IE, if you take B then it can be a hard read as long as it is
entertaining.
Steve Lamb
> My record for abandoning a book was David Foster Wallace's _Infinite Jest_;
> I was irritated by the style after five pages, and tossed it onto the
> discard pile after eleven. Has anyone ever given up on a book after fewer
> pages?
I seem to recall a few textbooks that were like that. :P
Normally it takes me far longer to bail on a book as I am much too
forgiving it seems. In fact I'm currently on my second read of Elizabeth
Moon's _Once a Hero_. I remember reading it. I remember deciding that I
didn't like it and felt confident I'd not want any of her other books.
Problem is I don't remember anything of the book or why I felt about it so.
So while looking at her other books in the store I figured "Ok, obviously
someone likes her... maybe I was wrong?" That's not my record though. I
actually sloughed through _Lasher_ and _Taltos_ after being extremely pissed
off at the first of the Mayfair books. I almost decided no more Anne Rice for
me. Then _Memnoc the Devil_ came out and I sloughed through that one on the
presumption that it wasn't a Mayfair book. D'oh!
Aynthem
A.M. Kuchling wrote in message ...
In what will come as a major shock to this newsgroup, I made it seven pages
(over four days) into Terry Pratchett's _The Truth_ before kicking myself in
the ass for wasting $4.95 on that crap not because I leafed through it and
was interested, but because I let myself be swayed by the opinions of
others.
It's not like we're in school, where we have to wade through pages and pages
of literary masterbation for an assignment. If a book doesn't interest you,
if reading it feels like a punishment, put it down and move on. To hell
with it.
Of course, it is disappointing when you've read an author's previous work
and enjoyed it, only to hate a new product. I feel as if I'm somehow being
disloyal, particuarly when it covers a similar subject. I love Jack Miles'
_God: A Biography_ (and it won a Pulitzer), but his followup _Christ_ just
doesn't grab me.
Melody
--
There are only two things that determine whether you're old
enough to do something: whether you *understand* what
the hell you're getting yourself into, and whether you're willing
to accept *responsibility* for it if it blows up in your face.
-- Ash, Midnight Blue's "The Mirror of Maybe"
Jason Steiner
> Graham wrote (in message <3F9634FA...@alphalink.com.au>):
> > Jason G wrote:
> >
> > > Besides the rather abrupt and annoying flipping back and forth
> > > between time periods and characters (with similar names),
> >
> > Keep an eye on those similar names. In case you haven't figured
> > it out yet, eventually all the dots get connected.
>
> And wondering how in the hell he was going to pull off connecting
> all those dots was half the fun for me.
Yup. I love cross-cutting like that. Some of my favorite books are
the ones that use that device, or tell several stories in the
same time period that eventually come together.
> I read Snow Crash and Diamond Age first, so Cryptonomicon wasn't
> exactly what I was expecting from the author, but I ended up loving
> it, too.
I read them in the same order, and Cryptonomicon seems much more
similar to The Diamond Age, in that it does for cryptography what
The Diamond Age did for Turing machines.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
Katie
wrote:
>In article <neWdnXUddNF...@speakeasy.net>, a...@amk.ca says...
>> My record for abandoning a book was David Foster Wallace's _Infinite Jest_;
>> I was irritated by the style after five pages, and tossed it onto the
>> discard pile after eleven. Has anyone ever given up on a book after fewer
>> pages?
Yes, Mary Gaitskill's book _Two Girls, Fat and Thin_. Here is a
sample:
I heard her rough, sorrowful voice, the Romanian accent that made her
sound as if she'd swallowed a mouthful of ground glass and been
surprised by how good it was. I saw myself, a near-psychotic child
cuddled in the melancholy armchair in my father's room, dappled by
splotches of sunlight through the cheesy curtains veiling the windows.
Blech, the whole thing reads like this. And I had taken it backpacking
- I have to have something to read (no cereal boxes in the back
country). I was soooooo disappointed I couldn't read it, I thought it
was that bad. To be fair, some like it and I bought it mainly for the
promise of "darkly erotic S&M", but I couldn't even stand it enough to
skim for the good parts. I understand it to be a thinly-veiled slam
against Ayn Rand as well, but on that topic, I am ignorant.
Katie (back to studying for Geography midterm tomorrow)
Fix yahoo to reply by email.
--
One fine young lady's horse refused the fence to clear.
-Jethro Tull
Veronique
I can't even remember the title, about two months ago gave up after
four paragraphs...gratuitious sheep abuse (the book was set in Wales.)
Took it back to the library and the next week a friend got it out for
me again! I think it had "sheep" in the title.
Boy, that was a useless bit of non-information.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Stephen J. Rush
Yep. I already knew how the Enigma worked, having read about in the
early 80's and then written a BASIC program to simulate it (As I
worked on that program, I tried to imagine the atrocities that any of
the governments involved in WW II would have committed to get their
hands on the Pet 2001 computer I was using). By the time I read the
Cryptonomicon I was alread a subscriber to Bruce Schneier's CryptoGram
newsletter.
Cristabel
Stephen J. Rush asked:
> Who was it who said, of the latest critics' darling "This is not a
> book to be lightly tossed aside. It should be THROWN, with great
> force!"
Silly man. Dorothy Parker, of course. I wish to heaven I knew which book
she was panning.
Cristabel. "What fresh hell is this?"
LinuxLibrarian
> On 2003-10-22, LinuxLibrarian <mrmo...@ahooyay.omcay> wrote:
>
>>That's why John Grisham, Danielle Steel, James Patterson and such ilk
>>got turned into America's "literary" giants of the "turn of the
>>millennium." Bleah!
>
>
> Uh, your comment doesn't track. You seem to imply he said he wanted
> nothing but an easy read. That is not what he said. He said that if he is
> going to be concentrating and thinking about what he is reading one of two
> conditions must be met:
>
> a: getting paid
> b: being entertained
>
> IE, if you take B then it can be a hard read as long as it is
> entertaining.
>
really isn't that "shallow & lowbrow." I was mostly decrying the
general tendency of Americans to read fiction that might as well be
turned into summer blockbusters & made-for-TV movies, or non-fiction
limited to Dr. Phil's latest & the latest flash-in-the-pan diet scheme.
It's a big case of national ADD...
One's literary diet shouldn't be all dessert, even if it's the richest,
most complex "fruitcake" (to borrow Etaoin's comparison) soaked in a
fine whiskey or liqueur.
Eat your veggies, too! (yes, I know, there are great classics out there
that certainly are "nutritionally" more worthy of one's time than Crypto.)
I think I would either add a 'c' to your multiple choice list, or expand
your concept of entertainment to include self-enrichment by exposure to
a lot of different stimuli.
Limiting your motivation to either the mighty dollar or
self-gratification (without delay) is, well, typically American... Maybe
it's generational, too -- I don't know your age, so I can't say for certain.
--LL
stePH
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:57:45 -0500, "A.M. Kuchling" <a...@amk.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>My record for abandoning a book was David Foster Wallace's _Infinite Jest_;
>>I was irritated by the style after five pages, and tossed it onto the
>>discard pile after eleven. Has anyone ever given up on a book after fewer
>>pages?
>
>
> Satanic verses. Three pages into the book I chucked it. Literally. And
> I don't throw books away ever, but this one went cheerfully into the
> dustbin. What a bunch of horrible writing that was.
>
It pissed off a bunch of religious fundies, to the point that they
howled for the author's death, so it wasn't all bad :)
stePH
--
NP: Aikawa Nanase, CRIMSON - "Bad Girls"
Beth Cole
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:57:45 -0500, "A.M. Kuchling" <a...@amk.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>My record for abandoning a book was David Foster Wallace's _Infinite Jest_;
>>I was irritated by the style after five pages, and tossed it onto the
>>discard pile after eleven. Has anyone ever given up on a book after fewer
>>pages?
>
>
> Satanic verses. Three pages into the book I chucked it. Literally. And
> I don't throw books away ever, but this one went cheerfully into the
> dustbin. What a bunch of horrible writing that was.
Only thing it had going for it was a death threat against the author. Whee.
For me, it was Book 2 of a fantasy series. Book 1 was _Rings of
Lightning_, which was well-written. Book 2 was _Rings of Intrigue_,
which opened with one of the main male characters trading being raped
for the safety of his two brothers in prison. No thanks. Don't need
all of the baggage that goes with that.
Beth
--
"Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold." -- Edmund Spenser
our home page: http://www.IsleOfSky.net
Aynthem
>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:22:45 GMT,
> Jason G <jrgusenet@xx_REMOVE_x_THIS_xx_PART_xxx_x_yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This from a person who read Small Gods in about three days and made
himself
>> late to work staying up late turning pages. I am very disappointed so
far.
>
>fun page-turning books down to a science. (Whether you remember anything
>from a Pratchett book a week later, um, well, ...)
>
>
>Current word in rec.arts.sf.written is that the sequel, _Quicksilver_, has
>similar flaws. _Cryptonomicon_ is in my to-read pile, but I won't hesitate
>to bail on it partway through.
>
>I was irritated by the style after five pages, and tossed it onto the
>discard pile after eleven. Has anyone ever given up on a book after fewer
>pages?
In what will come as a major shock to this newsgroup, I made it seven pages
(over four days) into Terry Pratchett's _The Truth_ before kicking myself in
the ass for wasting $4.95 (remainder table) on that crap not because I
leafed through it and was interested, but because I let myself be swayed by
the opinions of others.
It's not like we're in school, where we have to wade through pages and pages
of literary masturbation for an assignment. If a book doesn't interest you,
if reading it feels like a punishment, put it down and move on. To hell
with it.
Of course, it is disappointing when you've read an author's previous work
and enjoyed it, only to hate a new product. I feel as if I'm somehow being
disloyal, particularly when it covers a similar subject. I love Jack Miles'
_God: A Biography_ (and it won a Pulitzer), but his follow-up _Christ_ just
doesn't grab me, and I haven't been able to read more than a chapter thus
far.
Steve Lamb
> I think I would either add a 'c' to your multiple choice list, or expand
> your concept of entertainment to include self-enrichment by exposure to
> a lot of different stimuli.
Pft. Entertainment should entertain, period. If it isn't entertaining
then why do it?
> Limiting your motivation to either the mighty dollar or
> self-gratification (without delay) is, well, typically American... Maybe
> it's generational, too -- I don't know your age, so I can't say for certain.
Your problem is that you're mistaking "entertainment" for "enlightenment"
in much the same way dozens of thousands of movie snobs do. Entertainment
need not be enlightenment. It's ok for it to be pretty dumb. On the other
and if one is looking for entertainment and doesn't find it no amount of
enlightment is going to replace the lack of entertainment. Furthermore
putting something enlightening down because it isn't entertaining enough *when
looking for entertainment* does not preclude reading something enlightening
just for enlightenment. Would you pooh-pooh anyone who was looking for
enlightenment and put it down because, while entertaining, wasn't all that
enlightening?
LinuxLibrarian
> Pft. Entertainment should entertain, period. If it isn't entertaining
> then why do it?
Keep that Vaseline handy, you'll be needing it...
>
>>Limiting your motivation to either the mighty dollar or
>>self-gratification (without delay) is, well, typically American... Maybe
>>it's generational, too -- I don't know your age, so I can't say for certain.
>
>
> Your problem is that you're mistaking "entertainment" for "enlightenment"
> in much the same way dozens of thousands of movie snobs do.
You're calling it a problem, not me. ;-) And I am perfectly aware of
the difference.
Are you threatened by people who expect a little more craft and
sophistication from their $6.50? (local going rate for movie admission,
don't know about where you live) Don't worry about your entertainment
supply drying up; Jackie Chan will still be grossing more than Ang Li
years from now...
Entertainment
> need not be enlightenment. It's ok for it to be pretty dumb. On the other
> and if one is looking for entertainment and doesn't find it no amount of
> enlightment is going to replace the lack of entertainment.
Oh, I beg to differ. But there are none so blind as those that will not
see, so why should I waste any more finger strokes on this exchange?
Furthermore
> putting something enlightening down because it isn't entertaining enough *when
> looking for entertainment* does not preclude reading something enlightening
> just for enlightenment. Would you pooh-pooh anyone who was looking for
> enlightenment and put it down because, while entertaining, wasn't all that
> enlightening?
>
Whoa, and he writes for the government, too! I don't put down
entertainment for its own sake, I'm just prefer crème brulée to rice
pudding.
And AS I SAID, it's a free country, after all.
LinuxLibrarian
I have no cultural
> guilt to expiate through lexicographical suffering.
"No pain, no gain" isn't just restricted to the physical, but to the
mental and spiritual as well. You think Mother Theresa was just
recently beatified for playing a sweet guitar in Mass?
You could probably run rings around me in a debate
> about Unconscious Subtextual Postmodern Deconstructionist Transcultural Icons as
> Seen Through Comparative Iconoclasty. But I won't care, because while you are
> formulating your Fourteen Point Refutation Of Hypothesis, With Footnotes, I'll
> be out frolicing in the sunshine, and which one of us will die happier?
Who says I can't write it on my laptop out on the deck? I think I may
live longer 'cause I'm not letting my blood pressure elevate over this.
*Relax*, grab a home brew, bud. ;-)
--LL
Cheryl Greer
<JlUlb.11936$Ec1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
LinuxLibrarian <mrmo...@ahooyay.omcay> wrote:
>
> You're calling it a problem, not me. ;-) And I am perfectly aware of
> the difference.
> Are you threatened by people who expect a little more craft and
> sophistication from their $6.50? (local going rate for movie admission,
> don't know about where you live) Don't worry about your entertainment
> supply drying up; Jackie Chan will still be grossing more than Ang Li
> years from now...
Ok, I stayed out of this when it was about books, but now it's about
movies, and that's personal. ;) I am a Tedious Movie Prick. I take
movies seriously. And I cannot ABIDE the "can't you just be
ENTERTAINED?!" argument.
Let me put this simply for Steve and others. I like to be
entertained. I have nothing against entertainment. I go into the
theater with as much hopes of being entertained as the next person. BUT.
I cannot BE entertained if the movie is pure poorly-made crap. If you
went to a strip club, paid a high cover charge, expected to be
entertained, and the strippers all turned out to be fugly breeder moos
leaking milk, and your buddy turned to you and said "Aww, quityer
bitchin'! Can't you just be entertained?" how would you feel?
It's a very simple concept, really. (Unless we're talking about
appreciating bad movies AS bad movies, which is it's own separate
experience, IMO.)
Cheryl
--
"The first thing you lose on a diet is brain mass."
--Margaret Cho
mrfea...@aol.ccom
LinuxLibrarian says...
>
>Jason G wrote:
>
> I have no cultural
>> guilt to expiate through lexicographical suffering.
>"No pain, no gain" isn't just restricted to the physical, but to the
>mental and spiritual as well. You think Mother Theresa was just
>recently beatified for playing a sweet guitar in Mass?
Mother Teresa's beatification was an exercise in hypocrisy.
You might try a different example.
Mary
LinuxLibrarian
>
> Ok, I stayed out of this when it was about books, but now it's about
> movies, and that's personal. ;) I am a Tedious Movie Prick. I take
> movies seriously. And I cannot ABIDE the "can't you just be
> ENTERTAINED?!" argument.
>
> Let me put this simply for Steve and others. I like to be
> entertained. I have nothing against entertainment. I go into the
> theater with as much hopes of being entertained as the next person. BUT.
>
> I cannot BE entertained if the movie is pure poorly-made crap. If you
> went to a strip club, paid a high cover charge, expected to be
> entertained, and the strippers all turned out to be fugly breeder moos
> leaking milk, and your buddy turned to you and said "Aww, quityer
> bitchin'! Can't you just be entertained?" how would you feel?
>
> It's a very simple concept, really. (Unless we're talking about
> appreciating bad movies AS bad movies, which is it's own separate
> experience, IMO.)
>
> Cheryl
>
Thank you, well said. Likewise, I also expect a little more craft and
sophistication from my $6.50.
--LL
LinuxLibrarian
> In article <QtUlb.190424$0v4.14...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> LinuxLibrarian says...
>
>
>
> Mother Teresa's beatification was an exercise in hypocrisy.
>
> You might try a different example.
>
> Mary
>
I'm sure someone will take issue with whomever else I may choose.
Substitute in whichever widely-regarded spiritual leader you wish.
<sigh> Peace out.
--LL
Steve Lamb
> Let me put this simply for Steve and others. I like to be
> entertained. I have nothing against entertainment. I go into the
> theater with as much hopes of being entertained as the next person. BUT.
> I cannot BE entertained if the movie is pure poorly-made crap.
Which isn't what I said at all. If a movie is of poor quality then, yeah,
bitch about it. But "hihg quality" does not translate into "enlightening."
Take a recent example; Kill Bill. It is an homage to many of the Kung fu
movies from the 70s. About the only thing it missed was the immortal line,
"You kung-fu is strong!" It is violent to the point of laughable in some
areas. It goes way over the top. In short, there's very little in it which
could be confused with any number of more thought-provoking films out there.
But that's ok. Because it isn't supposed to be. It's homage to kung fu
and in that it is excellent. The production quality is high. Lots of the
shots are simply impressive. I don't mean purely the phyical talent and
training of the fight scenes but the camera work, the choices of color and
composition. Some of the most memoriable moments have nothing to do with
fighting. Only the most oblivious individual would say it isn't a quality
movie.
No, my dig on movie snobs isn't to defend poorly shot, edited, directed,
etc movies. Blast them all you want. My dig was against the snobs who would
go see Kill Bill and upon exiting the theater proclaim loudly for anyone
foolish enough to listen that it was a lousy film because it was too violent,
the story was too thin, it was too predictable and otherwise "had nothing to
say." They miss that it was never the point of that, or many other movies, to
have something to say, have some profound insight in the human condition or
otherwise engage the audience in a multi-layered complex story which needs to
be puzzled over for all the nuances. While I have nothing against those kinds
of movies and indeed enjoy them immensely I don't think it is correct to think
that ALL movies or ALL books or ALL of anything must pass to some
pseudo-intellectial litmus test to be either entertaining, worthy of my
patronage and support!
The only test should be this: Did it set out to do what it intended to
to do? That means if it was a simple action movie with some wow-whiz-bang
moments and no other pretentions of anything but that where's the problem if
that's all it delivered?
LinuxLibrarian
>
> The only test should be this: Did it set out to do what it intended to
> to do? That means if it was a simple action movie with some wow-whiz-bang
> moments and no other pretentions of anything but that where's the problem if
> that's all it delivered?
>
If *you* feel your money was well spent, bottoms up! I'm tired of this now.
--LL
Veronique
//smooches// Thank you, Mary.
JesterKat
<jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVExixTHISxixPART.com> wrote:
>I just have no compulsion to be an intellectual flagellant. I have no cultural
>guilt to expiate through lexicographical suffering.
I agree with this psot.
---JesterKat
***************
But how can you know what you want
Till you get what you want
And you see if you like it? ---Stephen Sondheim
Stephen J. Rush
wrote:
> I cannot BE entertained if the movie is pure poorly-made crap. If you
>went to a strip club, paid a high cover charge, expected to be
>entertained, and the strippers all turned out to be fugly breeder moos
>leaking milk, and your buddy turned to you and said "Aww, quityer
>bitchin'! Can't you just be entertained?" how would you feel?
As long as you didn't wander into a strip joint that specializes in
pregnant and lactating women. Yes, a few such do exist.
Back to the thread. IMHO, the first obligation of an author of
fiction is to tell a good tale. Do that well enough, and you can get
away with almost anything, even spacecraft that maneuver just like WW
II aircraft. Fail, and you either put your audience to sleep (or
worse).
mrfea...@aol.ccom
LinuxLibrarian says...
I don't do spiritual leaders, but I'll admit that there are those who are
preferable to Mother Teresa.
Mary
kali95
> Omixochitl <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> made obeisance before Us and spake thusly:
> >
> >His earlier novels were better, especially _Snow Crash_ and its distance
> >sequel _Diamond Age_. _Zodiac_ is fun too, and even _Big U_ is fun in an
> >amateur way.
>
> Which are what got me interested in him. I loved the first three and read
> them in days. But this book is just pissing me off so far.
>
Guess it's a matter of taste. I read "Cryptonomicon" first and loved it, but was
disappointed by his earlier books.
*k
kali95
> Interesting. I'm currently reading 'Quicksilver' which relates to
> 'Cryptonomicon' but is the first in a trilogy (gads, lucky booksellers don't
> sell by the pound...).
>
> This is either going to be a heckuva read or a monumental attempt at playing
> voyeur at a bout of intellectual masturbation.
>
Let us know which it is before it starts taking up room on my xmas list.
*k
CatWoman
>>It's infuriating. It's like every time a character in a book gets into a
>>car,
>>having to read a detailed explanation of internal combustion and
>>valve-timing,
>>followed by them getting into a boat and having to read a treatise on fluid
>>dynamics and hull design. I DON'T CARE. This ISN'T A TEXTBOOK.
>
> Auuugh! Sounds rather like the experience I've been having reading
> Jack Whyte's "Camulod Chronicles" (historically based King Arthur
> books.) He's always bringing what little plot momentum there is to a
> screeching halt with pages-long technical descriptions of sword-making,
> or Roman garrison design.
Heh. Just goes to show that we're all different. I had no
trouble with Camulod - read the entire series at one go.
dg
--
Send real mail to diana at wet ware dot com - remove obvious spaces..
CatWoman
> My record for abandoning a book was David Foster Wallace's _Infinite Jest_;
> I was irritated by the style after five pages, and tossed it onto the
> discard pile after eleven. Has anyone ever given up on a book after fewer
> pages?
I'm probably close. Hobbit. Don't know how many pages it was, but
it wasn't very many...
Jason G
>
>I'm probably close. Hobbit. Don't know how many pages it was, but
>it wasn't very many...
I tried to reread it a few years ago when I got a nice boxed set Tolkien. It
really shows its children's story roots. LOTR is much more interesting.
--
Jason G
[New sig coming soon. Watch this space.]
Jason G
says...
>If I had a novel that kept
>throwing math at me, I think I'd burn it and toast marshmallows over the
>flames.
>
Oh, and it isn't just in prose. There are actual mathematical formulae,
complete with greek letters. And graphs. And tables of numbers and letters. I
guess if I was a math geek this would read like sweaty hot porn, but hoo-boy am
I apparently not the target demographic.
I'm still giving it a try, and it is a relief to hear that I can skip the math
and not completely lose the plot later on.
LinuxLibrarian
>
> Stuff your "add a 'c' list" where the sun doesn't shine. This group is
> stuffed with literate people who have a fierce love of reading, and plenty
> of librarians to boot. All of whom have grace, wit, and the ability to
> converse on literary matters without sounding like they are stuffed up from
> a condescion high.
"Stuff it where the sun doesn't shine," eh -- such grace and wit. Touché.
I regret that my tone was misinterpreted. I maintain my stated
opinions, but deny that I started contributing to the thread with the
intent to attack either Jason or Steve; *Steve* came out swinging with
that phrase "YOUR problem is..." yada yada.
I voiced my opinion about the literary value of what sells best here
in the U.S., both on film and in books. Someone thought I was telling
him he couldn't hack Crypto so he shouldn't try; nothing could be
further from the truth. I suggested, as did many on this thread, that
he persevere in getting to the part of the book that would carry him
through to the end.
BTW, I also required such encouragement when I started it (thank you,
DW). Never said *I* was perfect.
>
> Oh, by the way, this group is international, and immediate
> self-gratification is not limited to Merkins.
But it is certainly characteristic. I'm entitled/free to say so; I also
am a "Merkin." Whether you are or not, it's at least your right as a
"Netizen" at any rate, to voice your disagreement.
> Try lurking. For a long time. Spend a long time on google.
Have done. How can you know how long? Go ahead and relegate me to your
killfile; I may reemerge under a different handle anyway. Possibly less
obnoxious next time, but no promises. ;-)
<Soapbox/>
I do find it amazing that such hackles have been raised over *my* posted
opinions about trivia (in the grand scheme of it all) such as leisure
fiction, when this group is rife with callous cynicism about the value
of certain human lives, and so many display such lack of sympathy for
the suffering of innocents at the hands of thoughtless breeders. I can
virtually hear the smug chortling.
For myself, I am childfree partially to avoid ever becoming responsible
for an innocent's misery.
--LL
LinuxLibrarian
>
> Not just that, but LL obviously believes that self-enrichment is not
> self-gratification.
>
They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but I *do* view the former as
being a higher pursuit than the latter. As Caine points out, it's an
international group, so why would a strange way of thinking surprise you so?
--LL
Debbie the Underdogged
jrgusenet@xx_REMOVE_x_THIS_xx_PART_xxx_x_yahoo.com says...
> Okay, so I'm giving this tome a go this week. So far I am very not hooked.
> Besides the rather abrupt and annoying flipping back and forth between time
> periods and characters (with similar names), I spent three full pages slogging
> through an explanation of a mathematical formula that went into tedious detail
> about bicycle chains and sprocket teeth.
>
> Please tell me this gets better. I understand that Stephenson is trying to
> explain mathematical concepts to the reader. But if understanding various
> mathematical formulae are going to get integral to the plot, I'm throwing this
> thing in the garbage right now, because I've spent weeks trying to do that at
> work, and I'm frigging sick of thinking with that area of my brain when I sit
> down for an hour's reading of an evening.
I'm just at the beginnings of reading it, and am hooked. However, in
general I love plots which jump back and forth in time, weave overly
complex relationships and have historical figures intermixed with the
fictional characters. Most of my friends who have tried to read it,
however, hate everything about it that I like. Guess I'm in a minority
:-).
--
Debbie the Underdogged das at spamcop dot net
"I'm not crazy, I've just been in a very bad mood for 40 years."
_Steel Magnolias_
Wallacd
>> Okay, so I'm giving this tome a go this week. So far I am very not hooked.
>
>> Besides the rather abrupt and annoying flipping back and forth between time
>
>> periods and characters (with similar names), I spent three full pages
>slogging
>> through an explanation of a mathematical formula that went into tedious
>detail
>> about bicycle chains and sprocket teeth.
>>
>> Please tell me this gets better. I understand that Stephenson is trying to
>
>> explain mathematical concepts to the reader. But if understanding various
>> mathematical formulae are going to get integral to the plot, I'm throwing
>this
>> thing in the garbage right now, because I've spent weeks trying to do that
>at
>> work, and I'm frigging sick of thinking with that area of my brain when I
>sit
>> down for an hour's reading of an evening.
>
>I'm just at the beginnings of reading it, and am hooked. However, in
>general I love plots which jump back and forth in time, weave overly
>complex relationships and have historical figures intermixed with the
>fictional characters. Most of my friends who have tried to read it,
>however, hate everything about it that I like. Guess I'm in a minority
::delurking:: Don't give up on the book yet. I'm a complete math phobe and I
still loved the book, even though it was slow going at times, for many of the
same reasons as Debbie. Just remember, when it comes to the math parts,
skimming is your friend. ;-)
Debra
(wallacd at aol.com)
"I haven't seen that twinkle in her eye since the neighbor children discovered
our electric fence." (Niles to Frasier about Maris).
"Never send a ferret to do a weasel's job." Louie the Lizard