jack: (Default)
[personal profile] jack
My God! Neal Stephenson was bitten by a radioactive library, and turned into an unholy cross between Umberto Eco and <Reverb>Tolkien</Reverb>.

Date: 2009-01-16 12:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quism.livejournal.com
I always assumed Stephenson was trying desperately hard to be Pynchon, except a whole lot easier going. Having got Anathem on the shelf, waiting for the time when I've built up enough upper body strength to carry it on the train with me, this Tolkien assertion has me worried.

Evidence for the Pynchon comparison (flimsy, obviously): Gravity's Rainbow, all about war and nerdiness = Cryptonomicon; Mason & Dixon, set in the 18th century and written in suitably anachronistic language, spread across three continents = Baroque Trilogy.

Date: 2009-01-16 01:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
As I say, that was based on the first page. The Tolkien comparison is based on the linguistic preface where he describes how he tried to use words evocative of similar linguistic relationships in our language as the original word did in the original language... :)

Although remembering what people said about his use of ACTUAL contemporary English in the Baroque Cycle (ie. that it was more for effect than actually bearing any relationship to the language of the time) I don't expect him to have actually been as obsessed as Tolkien, but evoking a similar sort of world. (Although it may not be accurate, I'm generally in favour, it's very much the sort of tone I'd expect/hope for :))

Date: 2009-01-16 07:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] despotliz.livejournal.com
Based on the fact that one of the evocative words he invents is "bulshytt", I don't think he's taking it quite as seriously as Tolkien did.

Date: 2009-01-16 01:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
(I've not actually read any Pynchon, so can't comment on the comparison.)

Date: 2009-01-16 12:58 pm (UTC)
andrewducker: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andrewducker
So far it's feeling more like Umberto Eco + Ian M Banks

Date: 2009-01-16 01:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/vitriol_/
He's had a bit of an Eco thing going on at least since Cryptonomicon, which had a similar love for suddenly randomly going off on a tangent on a barely-related (but interesting) note.

I still need to read The System Of The World before digging into Anthem.

Date: 2009-01-16 01:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Yeah, he always seemed Eco-y to me, although it might just be that I've not read any other similar books.

Date: 2009-01-16 02:12 pm (UTC)
nameandnature: Giles from Buffy (Default)
From: [personal profile] nameandnature
I think Anathem is less digressive than his previous stuff, because he's limited to digressions the first-person narrator might plausibly go into.

Other influences in terms of content are Walter M. Miller and Hermann Hesse.

Date: 2009-01-16 03:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rysmiel.livejournal.com
Much of Anathem's oddities are building towards doing something specific which does not become visible until a goodly way into the book. I like the language myself, mostly for the section-starting dictionary entries. I did not love it as much as the Baroque Cycle, though.