Stephenson's Baroque Cycle

March 1, 2005 12:51 PM

Does Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle undergo any stylistic changes in volumes two and three that will make it more readable?

I'm about 650 pages into Stephenson's Quicksilver right now, and I'm wondering if I should continue straight through to The Confusion, or give the series a break (perhaps indefinitely).

I have a very high tolerance for multiple-volume literary works, inside and outside the SF genre, and I loved all of Stephenson's previous novels that I've read (Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, and Cryptonomicon). But Quicksilver has what I consider to be some serious flaws, and it's not earning its keep for me right now--its narrative structure is pretty disorganized, and what precious little plot there is seems to be buried in page after page of trivia, which itself seems to have little rhyme or reason to its organization and is often something that I already know (the three pages devoted to an explanation of selling stocks short, for example). Members of various royal families appear for a few pages, speak a line or two of intrigue, and vanish with no character development. I'm beginning to feel that my time would be better served by reading a non-fiction work about the Baroque era instead.

So I guess my question is: if you were disappointed with Quicksilver, but not enough to stop reading the series, was The Confusion an improvement? Is the first volume Stephenson's way of winnowing the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, or does the narrative sloppiness (which isn't characteristic of his earlier novels) continue through the rest of the cycle? Am I at least going to get some original thoughts about the relation between scientific research and finance (which is what Stephenson seems to be flirting with, in his own highly inefficient way)? (Amazon's reader reviews indicate a dismal 3.5-star average for Quicksilver, vs. a 4.5-star average for The Confusion, but the number of reviews for Quicksilver is 229 vs. 47 for The Confusion, which indicates self-selection.)

posted by Prospero to writing & language (22 comments total)

Yes, it was an improvement, but more because I was used to the style from Quicksilver than anything else.
posted by SpecialK at 12:53 PM on March 1, 2005

The Confusion is MUCH better then Quicksilver. MUCH. I can't stress that enough. The story gets a lot more interesting, and is a lot easier to follow.
posted by chunking express at 1:54 PM on March 1, 2005

Quicksilver is a real slog -- I started that book three times before I finally finished it. But by the time I got to The Confusion I was familiar enough with the language to get some of the jokes Stephenson was making, and also there's more going on.

The writing doesn't get better -- you get better at reading.
posted by kindall at 1:55 PM on March 1, 2005

Quicksilver is heavier on plot and lighter on exposition than the preceeding book.

For what it's worth, I've not yet felt the need to begin the third volume yet.
posted by Keith Talent at 1:55 PM on March 1, 2005

I really liked The Confusion, The System of the World seems to be taking me a while to finish, but I think that has more to do with mental foot dragging (I don't want it to end) than the pace of the story itself.

I found that the trivia and royal family stuff either got easier or less noticeable in The Confusion, the trivia seems to be almost completely gone in The System of the World, but the royal drama is back with a vengeance.

I find the Metaweb idea intriguing, but would have preferred a complete character list at the beginning/end of each volume.
posted by togdon at 1:55 PM on March 1, 2005

I read Quicksilver a year and a half ago (when it came out). And found it a bit of a slog. Should I re-read it before starting The Confusion?
posted by Capn at 2:02 PM on March 1, 2005

Quicksilver is certainly a slog in places, depending on what you're into.

The Confusion is split into two different narratives involving characters that parallel each other, to a certain extent, and who meet towards the end of the novel. One of the narratives was something I could live without, but the other was non-stop excitement for me and made reading it worthwhile.

The System of the World is something I've finished, and that's about all I can say about that. There are interesting places in it here and there, but much of the book involves things that don't really interest me personally and so I finished the book more out of a sense that it was something I should do rather than out of a sense of enjoyment.

To put it another way: I've reread bits of Quicksilver, most of The Confusion and none of The System of the World. For my money, the second is the best of the lot and could nearly stand on its own.
posted by staresbynight at 2:05 PM on March 1, 2005

I actually found Quicksilver better on a second read, after finishing the other two, especially because there's a lot more to know about those opening bits with Daniel on board the Minerva. The Confusion is very good, and if you've managed to hang in there this far, stay with it and read the next one. System of the World...I found it jarring. It wasn't what I was expecting, definitely. At the same time, it was the most Stephensonesque of the three, compared to his other stuff. Also, it again connects up with all that stuff at the beginning of Quicksilver. I suppose that's where the Cyclical nature of the whole thing comes in.

Anyway, my advice is to stay with it and at least try The Confusion, if not System.
posted by dragstroke at 2:19 PM on March 1, 2005

Boy... been thinking *exactly* the same thing as Prospero ever since I eventually finished Quicksilver. I was skimming a lot near the end and have been put off getting further into the cycle. But looks like Confusion is worth the purchase. Quicksilver really, really needed a confident editor - but I'm not sure who could really edit it sufficiently barring Stephenson himself.
posted by humuhumu at 2:27 PM on March 1, 2005

I actually enjoyed the discursiveness of Quicksilver, and so still prefer it to the others. But if it's plot you're after, then plot you shall have, especially in the Confusion. He really accomplishes all of his exposition in Quicksilver, with only a little more occuring in the System of the World since he must demonstrate how England has changed since he last saw its shores. But if you've made it this far, you've made it through the thorniest part already.
posted by Verdant at 2:32 PM on March 1, 2005

I liked all three, but I can't say that the basic nature of the narrative changes after the first novel. However, the plot does get more lively in some ways.

It's probably best to look at the three books as being one (really long) novel -- if, in your estimation, the first book is as good as (say) the first third of Cryptonomicon, then by all means keep reading. If not, don't bother -- the work is clearly meant to entertain.

I think he does have some novel thoughts on the relation between finance and science, but like any good writer he doesn't come right out and tell you what they are, but makes them the basis for what's going on in the narrative. Anyway, by the third book it's pretty clear how all the threads intertwine, or fail to.
posted by Mark Doner at 2:32 PM on March 1, 2005

I'm not sure who could really edit it sufficiently barring Stephenson himself.

Oh come on - it's not like he's invented a new language. Believe it or not, he did not come up with the idea of historical fiction. There are a plenty of qualified editors out there.

Not to harsh Mr. Stephenson, I think he's great. But the adulation gets a bit thick at times - whether these books are great or not, they're certainly not some New Form of Literature.
posted by freebird at 2:34 PM on March 1, 2005

Quicksilver serves as background text for the other two books and I think it is purposefully hard to read. It sensitizes you to the era and gets you thinking in the right proto-scientific sort of mindset.

Usually I like to plough through novels, sucking them in as fast as I can, one book at a time. The Baroque Cycle--and especially book one--took me a long, long time to read, with many stops and starts and other books in between, and I really, really liked it.
posted by maniactown at 2:52 PM on March 1, 2005

Thanks--I get the impression that The Confusion is worth a look, so I'll stick with it.

With regard to the "plottiness" of the three books--it's not so much plot I'm after, so much as a structural framework for the information that Stephenson's giving me. To compare this book to Pynchon's Mason & Dixon (which it seems to be pretty strongly influenced by, much like Cryptonomicon seemed influenced by Gravity's Rainbow), Pynchon includes a lot of arcane historical details and uses playfully anachronistic language (that's much harder to read than Stephenson's). But it's pretty clear early on in M&D that Pynchon is interested in synthesizing all of the information he throws at you into a larger structure, even if he doesn't explicitly state the nature of that structure.

Stephenson doesn't seem to be as skilled as Pynchon at that synthesis--at present, my impression is that he just seems to be going on at length about Things He's Interested In (cryptography; finance; the history of science). There are discursive essays here and there, on the origin of the word "dollar" and on unusual methods of barter and on the usage of mercury in experiments and medicine, etc., but the connecting thing that these essays appear to have in common is that Stephenson likes them--not much else. (Not every writer can be Pynchon, though, and I do find enough of Stephenson's writing entertaining to want to continue reading it. When Stephenson parodies actual Baroque literature, in the occasional plays and in the epistolary passages, he demonstrates a pitch-perfect ear.)

As for editing--it's primarily the worldbuilding that could have used some trimming down. Efficient worldbuilding involves giving the reader a few crucial details that will allow him or her to interpolate the rest, but Stephenson generally prefers to give me all the details he can. If a character is going from point A to point B in London, Stephenson describes everything the character sees along the way. There are also several instances of the plot device typical of SF/fantasy in which one character says to another, "You may not know this, but [insert two-page description with information that could have been brought into the text through subtler means, or left out altogether]." (One might charitably call Stephenson's writing style "baroque," though.)
posted by Prospero at 3:24 PM on March 1, 2005

The Confusion makes a drastic narrative switch, splitting into two more evenly-divided narratives, one paced like an adventure story and one paced as a comedy of manners (I'll leave you to guess who the respective main characters are). System of the World then switches back to a more Quicksilver-like style.

I think I am the only person in the world who didn't think these needed an editor; I relished every word.
posted by hob at 4:19 PM on March 1, 2005

The thing about the "synthesis" in the Baroque Cycle is that it takes the whole 2700-odd pages to lay out all the things ot be synthesized and then bring them together. Depending on your taste, that may be a good or a bad thing.
posted by ubernostrum at 4:25 PM on March 1, 2005

I loved the way that everything came together in "The SotW" the fun of how things linked to Cryptonomicon especially delighted me.
posted by Megafly at 6:10 PM on March 1, 2005

I had a similar experience to Prospero when I read Quicksilver. I thought the Odalisque book, in particular, became too dense and plotless. After finishing, I put Stephenson away for a few months. I decided to reread Quicksilver before tackling The Confusion, and was suprised to find that I enjoyed it much more the second time (the same thing happened to me when I read Cryptonomicon, although I loved it the first time round too). I'm just finishing SoTW now.

I get the sense that I'm alone here, but I actually enjoyed Quicksilver and The Confusion equally. I think I just miss the original Jack/Eliza adventure/romance... you don't realize how powerful it was until its ended, which evidently is exactly what Stephenson intended.

Anyway, to echo others, The Confusion has a very different feel, and can stand on its own more easily. If you enjoyed the way Stephenson flits between and interweaves (confuses!) storylines in Cryptonomicon, you'll find more of the same in The Confusion. Stephenson basically starts the real story of the Baroque Cycle in book 1 of Quicksilver, drops it for 1500 pages of flashback, and once you've finally started to figure out how the pieces fit together, he dives back in at the beginning of SoTW, resolving tension that you'd been too emmeshed in details to even have realized was hanging. So, if you find the firehose of detail overwhelming, I think that's part of the point. And trust that a ton of the small, seemingly unimportant scenes in Quicksilver are referenced in the other two books, so you'll start getting your payoff for the work put in immediately.

If anyone is still reading this, one question for others who have completed the cycle: Jub jnf gelvat gb fraq Wnpx n zrffntr ivn gur Ovoyvpny cnffntrf va gur puhepu freivpr arne gur raq bs FbGJ, naq jung zrffntr jrer gurl fraqvat? V pbhyq frr fbzr ersreraprf gb erfheerpgvba, ohg V frafr gung gur zrffntr znl unir orra zber fcrpvsvp guna gung.
posted by gsteff at 9:19 PM on March 1, 2005

gsteff, here's my take on it, for whatever it's worth:

Gur zrffntr jnf onfvpnyyl gryyvat uvz jung ur arrqrq gb xabj -- gung ur pbhyq or erivirq sebz gur unys-qrnq (gur Beqvanel rzcunfvmrf guvf cuenfr) fgngr gung Wnpx Xrgpu jbhyq yrnir uvz va nsgre unatvat, ohg BAYL vs Xrgpu jnf fb CB'q ng uvz gung ur jnagrq Funsgbr shyyl pbafpvbhf sbe uvf qenjvat naq dhnegrevat nsgre. Gurer'f nyfb n ovg nobhg Rabpu orvat qrnguyrff - uvf obql orvat &dhbg;genafyngrq&dhbg; qverpgyl gb Urnira. Guvf vf zrnag gb erpnyy Rabpu Ebbg'f nznmvat ryvkvef naq fgenatr ybat yvsr gb Wnpx'f zvaq, fb ur xabjf ur pna gehfg va uvf &dhbg;erfheerpgvba&dhbg; nsgre gur unatvat.

Shegurezber, gur cnffntr nobhg gur evpu zna naq gur cbbe zna (naq fbzr bgure ovgf) ner nobhg vapvgvat gur Zboo gb orne uvf obql bss guebhtu gur pnershy znantrzrag bs uvf pbvantr naq evpu svarel. Ur hfrf fnzr gb nppbzcyvfu obgu raqf -- ur cvffrf bss Xrgpu eblnyyl ol tvivat njnl nyy gur zbarl ur'q cebzvfrq sbe n dhvpx qrngu, naq raqrnef gur pebjq gb uvz jvgu uvf trarebfvgl.

Gur zrffntr, fheryl, jnf cnvq sbe ol Ryvmn, gubhtu V qba'g guvax guvf vf rire fgngrq rkcyvpvgyl.
posted by dragstroke at 10:57 PM on March 1, 2005

I too enjoyed the discursiveness that was mentioned, and disagree with those that wish Stephenson had been more heavily edited. I read the 3 books one after another, and they were very satisfying... but maybe that's just because i think in too many directions at once, as a general style.

In the beginning, Quicksilver went slowly, as i adjusted to the language, but i can't think of a thing i wish he'd left out of any of the three books. The minor stylistic changes are more due to the focus of the narrative changing (and changing and changing).

;-) When i was done, i went back and re-read Cryptonomicon, and my delight in that book was compounded by having the Trilogy under my belt.
posted by reflecked at 7:47 AM on March 2, 2005

I am one of the legions who believe the series was in dire need of an editor who wasn't awed by the author. Stephenson is a genius writer and researcher...but he tends to be loquacious when brevity would work as well.

That said, I don't regret owning or reading all three of them. For me, the killer was the 3rd book...which just dragged on and on and on in the middle. It was the first Stephenson book I put down and wandered away from and went back to out of a sense of obligation to find out how it all ended. (It picks up again and the end is "don't bug me, I'm reading" experience.)

Of all of them, I think the second was my favorite. That may change if I ever work up the energy to reread them. :)
posted by dejah420 at 8:41 AM on March 2, 2005

Late to the party, but I finished SotW last night, finally. I too took much, much longer to read these works than I normally do with novels, and I know I slowed at the end because I didn't want it to end.

My memories of quicksilver are dim, but it was difficult to read. I want to re-read it, but that's a long-term goal. I thought The Confusion was the most Dumas-inspired of the three. Lots of action. Stephenson cryptically thanks Dumas in the credits, saying something like "Perhaps only other novelists will understand ..." -- is there more to his debt to Dumas than the obvious stylistic influences?

Finally, a new question regarding the ending: Jnf nalbar ryfr fhcevfrq ol ubj gvqvyl rirelguvat jnf oebhtug gb n pybfr? Fgrcurafba unf orra pevgvpvmrq va gur cnfg ol yrnivat uvf raqvatf gbb bcra, fb lbh guvax guvf vf ernpgvbanel? Nygubhtu V nz cyrnfrq jvgu gur bhgpbzrf sbe nyy gur punenpgref sebz na rzbgvbany fgnaqcbvag, V jnf fhecvfrq ol ubj "unccl" gur raqvat(f) jrer.

I doubt anyone will return to this thread to see this.
posted by sohcahtoa at 8:11 AM on March 29, 2005