Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Diamond Age -- Honourable Failure

392 views
Skip to first unread message

Mister Skin

unread,
May 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/5/96
to

The Diamond Age -- An Honourable Failure

***SPOILERS, you bet***

Contrary to some who've posted here, I enjoyed reading the Diamond Age
from beginning to end, despite the fact that Stephenson failed in
resolving the issues he set out to address, and despite the fact that he
clearly fumbled the plot about halfway through the novel.

Unfortunately, the plot of Diamond Age is so badly bungled that I have to
seriously question Stephenson's technical competence, and that of
whatever editor edited the book. The first half of the book derived most
of its tension from the peril that little Nell was in as she read the
primer (and the primer read her). Could the primer help her survive her
dangerous home life? Could it help her survive the machinations of Dr. X?

Once Nell reached safety in the enclave of the Vicky's artsy-crafsty
types about halfway through the book, most of the energy went out of the
story. If Stephenson had kept Nell in some kind of jeopardy throughout
the book, the plot would have had much more energy. That's the key error
Stephenson made, but hardly the only one. He also dropped a promising
plotline (Lord Hacker's ten years of service to Dr. X) by having him
disappear into a Drummer commune for ten years, essentially rendering him
boring for that time and thereafter. Lord Hacker's relationship with his
daughter when they hooked up after his time with the Drummers and her
time with the Primer, was also mishandled -- or should I say, ignored.

Stephenson also fumbled a REALLY intriguing subplot -- the education of
all the Chinese girls who'd been rescued from death from exposure, by
copies of the Primer. We see them reading the Primer early on, but all he
makes of them afterward is a bunch of cavorting kung-fu movie extras who
rescue Nell. If the primer was what it was supposed to be, wouldn't it
have made them more ... interesting?

The whole business of Nell leaving the Vickys for the Coastal Republic
makes little or no sense. Everybody's warning her about the Fists, so she
ignores the warning and heads for Coastal China, for no reason I can
clearly understand. You would think that a character who had been
described repeatedly as one who understood the importance of thinking
before she acted, would have done better than this.

I liked Diamond Age because it represented an honest attempt to think
through the social ramifications of the widespread use of nanotech.
Stephenson saw the problem nanotech presented to society as one of
cohesion and control. When power, food, water and all the material goods
needed for life come very, very cheaply through a feed, the centralized
governments and bureaucracies that dominate modern culture become
spectacularly unnecessary.

He offered a lot of solutions but none of them really worked. The Vickys
seem to have replicated most of the flaws of Victorian society, along
with its virtues: the men completely repress their emotions in Vicky
society, but are very prone to go to brothels for release, for example.
Or the "Joy" sessions that Nell was subjected to: forcing kids to do
rote-work for hours on end may instill discipline in them, but it also
tends to make them hate rote-work and discipline, and it is, as
Stephenson admits, a great waste of time.

The Confucians were even worse: a bundle of platitudes masquerading as a
culture. Stephenson never addressed the miserable showing of Confucian
culture, with its wars and social and technological immobility, versus
its self-avowed status as the Celestial Kingdom. (Though the problem of
technological immobility was addressed by Dr. X, with the hope that the
Seed would solve it. Which brings up another point: what the hell was the
Seed, and why was it supposed to be so revolutionary compared with
nanotech?)

Like a lot of writers on the topic of nanotech, he misses a lot of
important points: most noticeably, the one about most human beings
becoming superfluous in a world where all material goods can be built
from programs derived from a nanotech machine. Human history right up
until the present day shows no tendency among the few who weild power and
wealth to give a shit about the many who don't. Before you can write
about a world supporting billions with nanotech, you have to show me why
the billions who have little or no power wouldn't simply be allowed to
starve or to live at levels so brutally poor that they amount to slavery.

There were also some logical problems in Diamond Age. For example, poor
people have access to "feeds" the deliverers of nanotech goods, but their
feeds are small. Still you can get almost anything out of them at little
or no cost, if you place sufficient mass in the recycler to make it. So,
what's to keep poor people from going out and digging up some dirt and
shoving it in the recycler to increase their wealth?

On the other hand, Stephenson's ideas on how nanotech machines might be
used for warfare and defense, and for searching for objects, and for
surveillance, are imaginative, interesting and plausible. The use of
nanotech in Keith's Warstrider series (clouds of micromachines issue by
armored vehicles and aliens, which eat through armor, suffers by
comparison.

Stephenson also, in a sideplot, did an interesting job of showing how VR
would change the acting profession -- although I think John Barnes did a
more interesting job there, in Mother of Storms.

In Stephenson's defense, part of the problem with writing about nanotech
is that it's a Singularity-inducing sort of technology -- its potential
to change human society is so great that it is hard to imagine it in any
detail -- though it's fun trying. I think he did as good a job as any
I've seen in handling the effect of widespread nanotech on society.

Stephenson's notion that governments will just wither away in the future
is not at all convincingly presented, and lends weakness to both Diamond
Age and Snow Crash. Most especially, it made Snow Crash read like one of
Mack Reynolds pop sociology potboilers.

All told, I'd have to give Diamond Age the rank of Honourable Failure --
Stephenson tried to take on some formidable subjects, and even though he
blew the plotline and didn't succeed in dealing with the issues he raised
in a convincing manner, his honest attempt and his success in portraying
a society radically altered by nanotech, makes more thought-provoking
reading than a lot of other books, busted plotlines and all.

Honourable Failure is a very high rank in my book. I'd rather read an
Honourable Failure, in which a writer makes a game attempt to handle some
tough themes and loses it, than any number of successes by writers who
are just telling the same story, over and over again, or whose works
contain tough themes but which then evade or ignore them. I'm looking
forward to his next book with great interest.

I sure wish Stephenson hadn't blown that plotline, however.
_____________________________________________________
Visit my website at http://www.mindspring.com/~mrskin. Because I have a
terrible mind, and I have wasted it.

Avram Grumer

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

In article <4mieip$1d...@mule2.mindspring.com>, Mister Skin <
mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> The Diamond Age -- An Honourable Failure
>
> ***SPOILERS, you bet***
>

[many spot-on descriptions of plot problems in _The Diamond Age_ snipped]


>
> (Though the problem of
> technological immobility was addressed by Dr. X, with the hope that the
> Seed would solve it. Which brings up another point: what the hell was the
> Seed, and why was it supposed to be so revolutionary compared with
> nanotech?)

I think the Seed was supposed to be a form of nanotech that would draw on
its surroundings for raw material, rather than relying on a feed. This
was implied, but never well explained.

> wealth to give a shit about the many who don't. Before you can write
> about a world supporting billions with nanotech, you have to show me why
> the billions who have little or no power wouldn't simply be allowed to
> starve or to live at levels so brutally poor that they amount to slavery.

Of course, the necessities of life can be built by nanotech, too.
Stephenson does mention that there are certain things one can get for free
at any public compiler (such as those blankets Nell uses to foil the park
guard-bot). This doesn't explain _why_ the rulers would bother, but I
don't see any reason in particular that they shouldn't.

> There were also some logical problems in Diamond Age. For example, poor
> people have access to "feeds" the deliverers of nanotech goods, but their
> feeds are small. Still you can get almost anything out of them at little
> or no cost, if you place sufficient mass in the recycler to make it. So,
> what's to keep poor people from going out and digging up some dirt and
> shoving it in the recycler to increase their wealth?

The recycler only disassembles things that were made by the compiler.
This is directly stated.

> On the other hand, Stephenson's ideas on how nanotech machines might be
> used for warfare and defense, and for searching for objects, and for
> surveillance, are imaginative, interesting and plausible. The use of
> nanotech in Keith's Warstrider series (clouds of micromachines issue by
> armored vehicles and aliens, which eat through armor, suffers by
> comparison.

I was particularly fond of Stephenson's notion of nanotechnological
"immune systems."

--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.users.interport.net/~avram Work: agr...@crossover.com
If music be the food of love, then some of it be the Twinkies of dysfunctional relationships.

Scott Colvin Beeler

unread,
May 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/6/96
to

Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> writes:
>The Diamond Age -- An Honourable Failure
>
>***SPOILERS, you bet***
>

[Lots of snippity snippity throughout]

I agree in general with your assessment of the book, in that I really
enjoyed the characters and scenarios that were set up by Stephenson,
but didn't come together into a complete novel very well. I will
continue to buy his books on the basis of his excellent writing style
with the hope that the next one will have a plot to justify his
ideas and energy.

I also think that the Drummers weren't really handled well.
I also think that Nell going to the Coastal Republic was kind of odd.
Flaws in the Confucians and Victorians noted (but they were kind of
fun as social backgrounds).
Use of nanotech for war/surveillance/etc. very well done, I agree.
Now for the nitpicks...

> Stephenson also fumbled a REALLY intriguing subplot -- the education of
>all the Chinese girls who'd been rescued from death from exposure, by
>copies of the Primer. We see them reading the Primer early on, but all he
>makes of them afterward is a bunch of cavorting kung-fu movie extras who
>rescue Nell. If the primer was what it was supposed to be, wouldn't it
>have made them more ... interesting?

I think this is due to the fact that those Primers didn't have
access to ractors to add that human touch to the education. In this, as
well as the Castle Turing stuff, I thought Stephenson was telling us
computers can't imitate humans exactly.

>(Which brings up another point: what the hell was the


>Seed, and why was it supposed to be so revolutionary compared with
>nanotech?)

I believe that the Seed would have allowed things to be
constructed right out of the ground, instead of through a Feed, which
needs raw material from the Source, and therefore can be controlled by
those who control the Source. (or blown up, like the Fists did)

>Like a lot of writers on the topic of nanotech, he misses a lot of
>important points: most noticeably, the one about most human beings
>becoming superfluous in a world where all material goods can be built
>from programs derived from a nanotech machine. Human history right up
>until the present day shows no tendency among the few who weild power and
>wealth to give a shit about the many who don't. Before you can write
>about a world supporting billions with nanotech, you have to show me why
>the billions who have little or no power wouldn't simply be allowed to
>starve or to live at levels so brutally poor that they amount to slavery.

I thought that Stephenson DID have some of this in there. There
were free public Feeds, but those only had limited capacity. Other than
that, how much use you get out of the nanotech depends on how big your
Feed is. The masses are kept just out of starvation/outright slavery
but there still is a definite class structure. The more successful
(economically, I imagine) clans, such as the Vickys, can afford to buy
bigger Feeds and better stuff, while less successful ones are stuck with
what's left. It's a fairly capitalistic depiction of nanotech.
(and Please don't anybody start any more capitalism/socialism debates
over this) Even though "governments" as such may be dead, the clans
which replaced them are in most ways equivalent to present-day countries.

>There were also some logical problems in Diamond Age. For example, poor
>people have access to "feeds" the deliverers of nanotech goods, but their
>feeds are small. Still you can get almost anything out of them at little
>or no cost, if you place sufficient mass in the recycler to make it. So,
>what's to keep poor people from going out and digging up some dirt and
>shoving it in the recycler to increase their wealth?

Again, I believe the raw materials can only come from the Source.
(I have no idea why, but that's how I read it) I thought the recycler
just broke stuff down and disposed of it somehow.

>Stephenson's notion that governments will just wither away in the future
>is not at all convincingly presented, and lends weakness to both Diamond
>Age and Snow Crash. Most especially, it made Snow Crash read like one of
>Mack Reynolds pop sociology potboilers.

I don't think a collapse will happen quite on the scale which
Stephenson presents, but I can accept it as a basis for a rather
unusual future scenario.

Scott

Courtenay Footman

unread,
May 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/7/96
to

In article <4mliot$o...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>,

Scott Colvin Beeler <scbe...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>> Stephenson also fumbled a REALLY intriguing subplot -- the education of
>>all the Chinese girls who'd been rescued from death from exposure, by
>>copies of the Primer. We see them reading the Primer early on, but all he
>>makes of them afterward is a bunch of cavorting kung-fu movie extras who
>>rescue Nell. If the primer was what it was supposed to be, wouldn't it
>>have made them more ... interesting?
> I think this is due to the fact that those Primers didn't have
>access to ractors to add that human touch to the education. In this, as
>well as the Castle Turing stuff, I thought Stephenson was telling us
>computers can't imitate humans exactly.

No, Stephenson did not fumble things here. Remember that the Primer
the Mouse Army was educated on was deliberately changed to reflect
"Confucian" values. The person who made the changes slipped one over
on his employers. _The Diamond Age_ had problems, but this was not one
of them.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and
c...@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done.

Ethan A Merritt

unread,
May 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/9/96
to

In article <4mrljt$14...@mule1.mindspring.com>,
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <4mnq31$j...@light.lightlink.com> Courtenay Footman,
>c...@light.lightlink.com writes:
>
>:> No, Stephenson did not fumble things here. Remember that the Primer

>:> the Mouse Army was educated on was deliberately changed to reflect
>:> "Confucian" values. The person who made the changes slipped one over
>:> on his employers. _The Diamond Age_ had problems, but this was not
>one
>:> of them.
>
>Actually, I think there's still a problem -- the premise of the Primer
>was that it was supposed to provide an intellectually stimulating
>education for its readers, and all we saw of the Mouse Army was a bunch
>of kung fu artistes. Is this what Confucian values at their best would
>produce?

You missed the hint in both Courtenay's post and in _Diamond Age_ itself.
Hackworth instilled his "Confucian values" by programming the primer to
create a mouse army with allegiance to Nell. That's the fast one he pulled
on Dr. X & Co. We saw the mouse army running hell-bent-for-leather to
Pudong in order to rescue Nell, because that is what Hackworth's
instilled values led to. Whenever not busy rescuing Queen Nell they may
well have been interesting people, stimulating conversationalists, and
most excellent tea party guests :-)

Although actually I don't think this description applied even to Nell
herself before her introduction into actual human society. Stephenson
definitely was making a point about the limitations of Turing machines
either to achieve full human social interactions or to instill them into
a child.

Ethan A Merritt
mer...@u.washington.edu

Charles Hagmaier

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

Scott Colvin Beeler <scbe...@eos.ncsu.edu> writes:

> I think this is due to the fact that those Primers didn't have
>access to ractors to add that human touch to the education. In this, as
>well as the Castle Turing stuff, I thought Stephenson was telling us
>computers can't imitate humans exactly.


And here we come to the weakest notion in the book. Ractors. In what
way and in what fashion is this a workable idea? The real-time
co-operation of a ractor is required for a full-ractive sim,
correct? In this sense, it's a one-off performance, piecework.
We're talking about a form of entertainment as labour-intensive
as prostitution. For ractives to be as universally available
as Stephenson seems to indicate, half the world would have to
be in these little theatres, servicing what ever tenth is
currently enjoying a spot of entertainment.

Mitch Hagmaier
Quest Labs

Mike Berro

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

Charles Hagmaier <foole...@delphi.com> wrote:
>And here we come to the weakest notion in the book. Ractors. In what
>way and in what fashion is this a workable idea? The real-time
>co-operation of a ractor is required for a full-ractive sim,
>correct? In this sense, it's a one-off performance, piecework.
>We're talking about a form of entertainment as labour-intensive
>as prostitution. For ractives to be as universally available
>as Stephenson seems to indicate, half the world would have to
>be in these little theatres, servicing what ever tenth is
>currently enjoying a spot of entertainment.

Assuming that half the world could *afford* them. The
less-fortunate (and there are plenty) have to make do with AI; and the
difference twixt ractors and AI is a major (if subtley presented)
point of the book.

And of course it is *exactly* like prostitution, whereas current TV
is group prostitution.

As for labour-intensive; the only reason the fast food chains
currently don't go to robotics is that they'd put half their own
customers out of work, and that just wouldn't do. Being
labour-intensive is a *good* thing (in a capitalistic society.)

---Mike

Charles Hagmaier

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

Mike Berro <mi...@massmedia.com> writes:

> Assuming that half the world could *afford* them. The
>less-fortunate (and there are plenty) have to make do with AI; and the
>difference twixt ractors and AI is a major (if subtley presented)
>point of the book.

It doesn't need to be half the world. If you're going to be putting
the damn things in childrens books etc, it could be a small fraction
and it still would be prohibitively expensive. Note that your
average fatcat doesn't use prostitutes 6 hours a day the way that
some parents use mass-media to babysit their brats. This is the
kind of usage that Stephenson is implying.

Mitch Hagmaier
Quest Labs

Mike Berro

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

Charles Hagmaier <foole...@delphi.com> wrote:

>Mike Berro <mi...@massmedia.com> writes:
>It doesn't need to be half the world. If you're going to be putting
>the damn things in childrens books etc, it could be a small fraction
>and it still would be prohibitively expensive.

I disagree. You would have great ractors, who were "prohiibitively
expensive" (not so, as there are always the filthy rich), cheap
ractors, and AI. There was also group racting, with one ractor and
the other 5-20+ being paying customers. There may have been other
methods not ennumerated in the book.

Of course this is all rationalization. My imagination is fertile
enough to make assumptions the author may have left out, deliberately
or not. I enjoy analysing an author's writing style much more than
the "facts", especially with science fiction!

---Mike


Nancy Lebovitz

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

In article <4nia7v$f...@chile.it.earthlink.net>,

Mike Berro <mi...@massmedia.com> wrote:
>
> As for labour-intensive; the only reason the fast food chains
>currently don't go to robotics is that they'd put half their own
>customers out of work, and that just wouldn't do. Being
>labour-intensive is a *good* thing (in a capitalistic society.)
>
Actually, I doubt that as many as half the customers in fast
food restaurants work in the same--and in any case, work *is*
being done on automating the work. I've heard that one of the
hardest bits is packing the fries into the container in a
way that maximizes the apparent quantity. A vending machine
that could make fresh French fries would make someone very
rich.

Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)

12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email


Christopher Davis

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

NL> == Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net>

NL> A vending machine that could make fresh French fries would make
NL> someone very rich.

I've seen one. It did work. It didn't work terribly well.

The fries were "okay".

Since I haven't seen them take over the world I suspect the inventor is
not "very rich" at present.

(Mind you, I saw this machine at Boston University in, um, 1989 or
thereabouts. Quite some time ago.)

Mike Berro

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>Actually, I doubt that as many as half the customers in fast
>food restaurants work in the same--and in any case, work *is*
>being done on automating the work. I've heard that one of the
>hardest bits is packing the fries into the container in a
>way that maximizes the apparent quantity. A vending machine
>that could make fresh French fries would make someone very
>rich.

Nancy,

I guess my point is that the large companies by and large *are*
"socially responsible", in the sense that they realize the impact
changes they make have on (at least American) society. Sort of an
"enlightened self-interest". I use quotes because I doubt their
criteria are what altruists might hope.

I think there would be a lot of opposition to automated french
fries. A home unit was marketed about 15 years ago with little
success. They may have been lousy, but that's not what made it fail.
(IMHO)

---Mike

Loki

unread,
May 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/21/96
to

In ashen ink, Christopher Davis (c...@loiosh.kei.com) inscribed:
: NL> == Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net>
: NL> A vending machine that could make fresh French fries would make
: NL> someone very rich.

: I've seen one. It did work. It didn't work terribly well.

: The fries were "okay".

Well, perhaps if we qualify the original statement, "A vending machine
that could make good, fresh french friees would make someone very rich."

- Loki
--
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Geoffrey Wiseman | http://tdg.uoguelph.ca/~ontarion/users/geoff |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
"Thank you, Mr. President, for my holiday, sir. I can't
really say that I wish you were here, but thank you all
the same, sir." - Love & Rockets

Nancy Lebovitz

unread,
May 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/22/96
to

In article <w4ohnj2...@loiosh.kei.com>,

Christopher Davis <c...@loiosh.kei.com> wrote:
>NL> == Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@universe.digex.net>
>
> NL> A vending machine that could make fresh French fries would make
> NL> someone very rich.
>
>I've seen one. It did work. It didn't work terribly well.
>
>The fries were "okay".
>
>Since I haven't seen them take over the world I suspect the inventor is
>not "very rich" at present.
>
>(Mind you, I saw this machine at Boston University in, um, 1989 or
>thereabouts. Quite some time ago.)

I mispoke--what would be required is a vending machine that can
make *good* fresh french fries at a price competitive with the
human-made variety.

Robert Blazek

unread,
May 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/24/96
to

In article <4nqoos$s...@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>,

French fry vending is one of those retail holy grails, great idea
but almost impossible to develop in practice.
Up here in Canada there's been several companies that have so
far tried and failed to create good french frie vending machines.
One Harvard something-or-other had lassoed a former Prime Minister
of ours, John Turner onto the board (only PM for a short time
but not the shortest, Tupper was the shortest serving PM, but I digress).
Several years ago it went bust and caused a bit of hostile publicity.

Anyways the two main ideas behind such vending machines have remained
essentially the same.

1) Somehow heat up pre-frozen packets of fries with minimal fuss, muss,
and mess. Oil fryers were tried but they proved a nightmare with
problems with smoking, fires, rancid oil and the like. Also
keeping fries fresh and palatable until cooked proved a problem,
if a power failure occurred or a plug pulled you ended up with
mildewed fries.
Microwaving was also attempted but fries always turned out
soggy and wet. Stiffening up the fry recipe produced fries
too hard on the outside and too soft on the inside.


2) Produce your fries at the time of vending. This was the route
Harvard took. Each machine would have a supply of potatoe flour
mix, then when fries were ordered it would mix some with water
extrude it out a nozzle into an oil bath. It never turned out
right, fries either came out under or overcooked, often looking
fine on the surface but runny when bit into. They also didn't
taste frie-like enough, nor look good enough to pass as
anything but fried extruded potatoe paste. Problems happened
with the oil baths, some fires were reported and the test
units were withdrawn back to the factory.


Now frie vending may be just like many other great ideas that finally
flowered, once the engineering details are worked out.
But so far several fortunes and some reputations have been
dragged through the fryer.


My two spuds,

--
----
Robert S. Blazek, Windsor Law Third Year
* Kids dream they can fly. Adults dream they can fly first class.
My groovey web page: http://supernova.uwindsor.ca/people/blazek/

Mister Skin

unread,
May 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/26/96
to

In article <DrwsL...@news.uwindsor.ca> Robert Blazek,

bla...@uwindsor.ca writes:
> French fry vending is one of those retail holy grails, great idea
> but almost impossible to develop in practice.

I checked on this expecting to see something about Diamond Age, and
instead got a history of french fry vending -- I guess I should be
pissed, but I thoroughly enjoyed the read!

0 new messages