What IS up with Enoch Root?
Mar. 10th, 2009 03:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackAnathem is not in a shared universe with Cryptonomicon, though it might be a philosophical successor
From Neal Stephenson's interview II on anathem on his website. He goes into a little more depth, so one could interpret it another way (if you said "universe" referred only to the universe featured in Anathem, not ones they can travel to), but I think that's clearly not what he intends.
Thus Anathem shouldn't shed any light on Enoch, I think.
Anathem and the Baroque cycle were not originally conceived along with Cryptonicon
I had heard Cryptonomicon as originally envisaged as past, present, and future strands, and assumed these inspired Cryptonomicon, Baroque Cycle, and Anathem respectively. However, if I understand his interview correctly, I was mistaken, and Cryptonomicon represents the past and present strands, the future dropped out, and the Baroque Cycle was subsequently inspired by Cryptonomicon.
Thus, there is not necessarily a future confluence of all the mysteries of the baroque cycle waiting to come out, as I'd assumed, so it may be correct to read it as standing alone.
What do we all agree about Enoch Root
http://www.cafeaulait.org/cryptonomicon.html
I forgot to link to this before, it has a good summary of most things people have wondered. I first came across it in a conversation with Mair, but several people have reminded me of it since. (Thank you.) Click through to the Baroque Cycle page, and then the System of the World page.
1. Enoch is effectively immortal, re-ressurecting himself either periodically, or whenever he suffers an accident. I think after the Baroque cycle this is clear, but I'll list a few points of evidence.
cf. Enoch definitely dies after he marries Julietta. (There's some room for interpretation, "Enoch dies" might be speaking metaphorically, but I think that's the intent.)
cf. Enoch in 16xx and 17xx and 1940 and 1980 are the same character according to Neal Stephenson. (See at least one nice theory shot down by this in the linked page, namely that Enoch-1950 is Enoch-16xx but Enoch-1980 is Daniel Waterhouse-16xx.)
2. Enoch is seen, and sees himself, as somehow above humanity, whether that is simply due to his longevity, or due to him not actually being a normally born human.
cf. Daniel observes that Enoch and Solomon Khan, who know about the Solomonic gold, choose to hide it from Newton, and implicitly assumes that maybe they know what they're doing.
cf. Enoch and Solomon and maybe Newton are described as "wise" as opposed to "erudite", ie. having a direct line to God (either really or metaphorically), and from the expository nature of the dialogue I think this is supposed to be taken infalliably.
cf. Enoch and Daniel talk about God having created man, and Enoch says that God created him, but is deliberately non-committal as to whether he is a man.
cf. Enoch constantly tweaks human history forward.
cf. Enoch constantly tweaks individual lives of people similarly.
Non-answered questions
1. Enoch always appears at serendipitous moments to tweak things back "on track". Is this:
(a) a narrative technique, a deus ex machina
(b) Enoch having special knowledge (angel, time traveller, incanter, etc)
(c) Enoch being lucky, driven, and good at planning.
In fact, all three are consistent with Stephenson's style of writing: some coincidences are obviously there for style reasons, due to fate with no in-story reason to happen; other coincidences are clues to an underlying structure. So in a normal book you could tell (even if you didn't want to admit it) whether an apparent mystery was (a), (b), (c) or just a mistake.
Judging from the conversations near the end of System of the World, Stephenson intended to tie things up, so I incline to believe that whatever's implied there is true for the series.
2. Is Enoch shepherding human knowledge? Or just easing it over a few kinks in a few specific situaitons, but basically powerless to alter long term trends? Some quotes sound one way, some the other.
If Enoch is something special, is he a hand of God in some sense? Is he Enoch (father of Methuselah)?
Enoch is apparently religious, although he may see God as a metaphor rather than a real being. Are the references to being created by God, and being wise, not metaphorical?
When Eliza rescues Jack from the gallows, she uses the bible passage describing Enoch being translated to heaven. I think it's clear that:
(a) She's mainly using it to indicate that Jack will be rescued
(b) The passage's existence in the book means Enoch definitely bases himself on that sort of biblical tradition at least somewhat
(c) But doesn't mean he is that Enoch.
All I know about that Enoch is that (a) he didn't die (b) he is traditionally considered to have something to do with angels. Is the Enoch-is-Enoch theory based on that, or are there further points of correspondence?
If Enoch is something special, is he a time traveller?
I mention this only to point out:
(a) That would be entirely consistent with the way Stephenson works. It would neatly explain why he's always in the right place: some but not all of the time, he knows where exactly to go to work toward his specific end. (I imagine him like the Eschaton :))
(b) The reference to "time-travellers should not rely on certain details in this glossary" is NOT evidence for the theory, for though it's consistent with it, it's equally consistent with the null hypothesis that time travel has nothing to do with it, and Stephenson was using a joke to describe which parts were non-historical-accurate.
Conclusions
By Occam's razor I'm inclined to the view that Enoch is an authorial deus-ex-machina made immortal by special knowledge that also made the philsopher's stone in the heavy gold. The other theories are equally consistent, but I think that if Stephenson secretly intended one to be specifically correct, there would be some indication, and I can't see any evidence.
From Neal Stephenson's interview II on anathem on his website. He goes into a little more depth, so one could interpret it another way (if you said "universe" referred only to the universe featured in Anathem, not ones they can travel to), but I think that's clearly not what he intends.
Thus Anathem shouldn't shed any light on Enoch, I think.
Anathem and the Baroque cycle were not originally conceived along with Cryptonicon
I had heard Cryptonomicon as originally envisaged as past, present, and future strands, and assumed these inspired Cryptonomicon, Baroque Cycle, and Anathem respectively. However, if I understand his interview correctly, I was mistaken, and Cryptonomicon represents the past and present strands, the future dropped out, and the Baroque Cycle was subsequently inspired by Cryptonomicon.
Thus, there is not necessarily a future confluence of all the mysteries of the baroque cycle waiting to come out, as I'd assumed, so it may be correct to read it as standing alone.
What do we all agree about Enoch Root
http://www.cafeaulait.org/cryptonomicon.html
I forgot to link to this before, it has a good summary of most things people have wondered. I first came across it in a conversation with Mair, but several people have reminded me of it since. (Thank you.) Click through to the Baroque Cycle page, and then the System of the World page.
1. Enoch is effectively immortal, re-ressurecting himself either periodically, or whenever he suffers an accident. I think after the Baroque cycle this is clear, but I'll list a few points of evidence.
cf. Enoch definitely dies after he marries Julietta. (There's some room for interpretation, "Enoch dies" might be speaking metaphorically, but I think that's the intent.)
cf. Enoch in 16xx and 17xx and 1940 and 1980 are the same character according to Neal Stephenson. (See at least one nice theory shot down by this in the linked page, namely that Enoch-1950 is Enoch-16xx but Enoch-1980 is Daniel Waterhouse-16xx.)
2. Enoch is seen, and sees himself, as somehow above humanity, whether that is simply due to his longevity, or due to him not actually being a normally born human.
cf. Daniel observes that Enoch and Solomon Khan, who know about the Solomonic gold, choose to hide it from Newton, and implicitly assumes that maybe they know what they're doing.
cf. Enoch and Solomon and maybe Newton are described as "wise" as opposed to "erudite", ie. having a direct line to God (either really or metaphorically), and from the expository nature of the dialogue I think this is supposed to be taken infalliably.
cf. Enoch and Daniel talk about God having created man, and Enoch says that God created him, but is deliberately non-committal as to whether he is a man.
cf. Enoch constantly tweaks human history forward.
cf. Enoch constantly tweaks individual lives of people similarly.
Non-answered questions
1. Enoch always appears at serendipitous moments to tweak things back "on track". Is this:
(a) a narrative technique, a deus ex machina
(b) Enoch having special knowledge (angel, time traveller, incanter, etc)
(c) Enoch being lucky, driven, and good at planning.
In fact, all three are consistent with Stephenson's style of writing: some coincidences are obviously there for style reasons, due to fate with no in-story reason to happen; other coincidences are clues to an underlying structure. So in a normal book you could tell (even if you didn't want to admit it) whether an apparent mystery was (a), (b), (c) or just a mistake.
Judging from the conversations near the end of System of the World, Stephenson intended to tie things up, so I incline to believe that whatever's implied there is true for the series.
2. Is Enoch shepherding human knowledge? Or just easing it over a few kinks in a few specific situaitons, but basically powerless to alter long term trends? Some quotes sound one way, some the other.
If Enoch is something special, is he a hand of God in some sense? Is he Enoch (father of Methuselah)?
Enoch is apparently religious, although he may see God as a metaphor rather than a real being. Are the references to being created by God, and being wise, not metaphorical?
When Eliza rescues Jack from the gallows, she uses the bible passage describing Enoch being translated to heaven. I think it's clear that:
(a) She's mainly using it to indicate that Jack will be rescued
(b) The passage's existence in the book means Enoch definitely bases himself on that sort of biblical tradition at least somewhat
(c) But doesn't mean he is that Enoch.
All I know about that Enoch is that (a) he didn't die (b) he is traditionally considered to have something to do with angels. Is the Enoch-is-Enoch theory based on that, or are there further points of correspondence?
If Enoch is something special, is he a time traveller?
I mention this only to point out:
(a) That would be entirely consistent with the way Stephenson works. It would neatly explain why he's always in the right place: some but not all of the time, he knows where exactly to go to work toward his specific end. (I imagine him like the Eschaton :))
(b) The reference to "time-travellers should not rely on certain details in this glossary" is NOT evidence for the theory, for though it's consistent with it, it's equally consistent with the null hypothesis that time travel has nothing to do with it, and Stephenson was using a joke to describe which parts were non-historical-accurate.
Conclusions
By Occam's razor I'm inclined to the view that Enoch is an authorial deus-ex-machina made immortal by special knowledge that also made the philsopher's stone in the heavy gold. The other theories are equally consistent, but I think that if Stephenson secretly intended one to be specifically correct, there would be some indication, and I can't see any evidence.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-10 05:00 pm (UTC)