He may be over it by now (as I have not read any of his more recent work), but I’m convinced that at the time he was writing Cryptonomicon and the Baroque Cycle (of which Quicksilver is the first volume), the first thing Neal Stephenson did every morning right after getting out of bed was to shamble into the bathroom and stand there for ten minutes, just staring bleary-eyed into mirror and bemoaning his fate that it was not Thomas Pynchon looking back at him.If with Cryptonomicon Stephenson tried to write Gravity’s Rainbow, then the Baroque Cycle is his attempt at authoring Mason & Dixon, an exploration of modern technology and the effect it has had on the 20th century followed by a sprawling, weird, detail-obsessed historical novel. Unfortunately, Neal Stephenson was not only too late in both cases, but is also not nearly the writer Pynchon is, and therefore ended up failing rather spectacularly, producing a series of novels that, in spite of their massive bulk, seems rather flat and shallow if held up against Pynchon.Admittedly, I am being somewhat unfair here – not every writer can be a Pynchon, and usually that is not something you’d hold against anyone. It is just that Stephenson so clearly, desperately wants to be Pynchon, making it impossible to not judge him by that standard, a standard which he just cannot measure up to. I already disliked Cryptonomicon, but that was at least was somewhat entertaining; while Quicksilver, when I first read it (shortly after it was released) was just a terrible slog to get through. I did made it to the end somehow, but didn’t touch another novel by Stephenson afterwards.But sometimes I do get those strange urges, and a few months back I started ogling the Baroque Cycle again. Whatever the reason, after some months of futile resistance the urge became irresistible, I got myself the e-book version of Stephenson’s trilogy and started – not without some misgivings – digging into Quicksilver. And ended up surprised at how much I was enjoying it – so much so, in fact, that I read the whole of the Baroque Cycle, all almost 3000 pages of it in almost exactly a month.Which is not to say that I did not still have some problems with it. If one comes to this novel with Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey-Maturin series fresh in one’s mind it is almost painfully obvious to what degree Quicksilver fails as a straight historical novel. Not that I’d have thought even for a moment that Stephenson attempted to write one, but his attempts at mimicking the Baroque writing style are quite grating after O’Brian’s full immersion in his chosen period (and don’t even get me start on a comparison to Mason & Dixon). Stephenson seems half-hearted by comparison, his occasional usage of old spellings seems arbitrary (for example he inexplicably keeps writing “roofs” as “rooves” but is perfectly happy to use a modern spelling for most words) and generally gives the impression of someone just wanting to show off (which I strongly suspect is the raison d’être for a lot of the extended, quite often tedious descriptions of all sorts of minutiae). But then, this is not really supposed to be a strictly historical novel – Stephenson liberally peppers his narrative with anachronisms, and the auctorial is distinctly contemporary and postmodern. Which has the rather unfortunate effect that the novel reads like it wasn’t able to take itself seriously – on the one hand, it is a serious historical novel with a plethora of period detail, on the other it seems more preoccupied with finding precursors modern concerns like programming languages and arbitrary signifiers; on the one hand it seems to want to say something important, on the other it’s just here to have some fun.Quicksilver is separated into three parts, each with a different protagonist, each of which seems to also work as some kind of allegory – Daniel Waterhouse who is the protagonist of the first book, is a Man of Science, Jack Shaftoe, protagonist of the second, is a rogue and classical picaro, and Eliza (not sure we ever learn her second name), protagonist of the third book and a genius of financial manipulation. Personally, I rather liked the first books but I suspect that was mostly because I already had an interest in the history of science of that period, but most readers (and that would include me) tend to prefer the second, because it is there that Stephenson changes from trying to write serious literature (which, seriously, he is just no good at) to spinning a yarn of colourful adventure (which, it turns out, he is really good at). “King of te Vagabonds,” the Jack Shaftoe part of the novel is an inordinate amount of fun, taking our morally doubtful hero from Vienna to the Netherlands to Paris in a series of increasingly wild and improbable adventures in the true picaresque manner and lets the reader forget about the ponderous, slow-moving first part with several hundred pages of glorious entertainment.Unfortunately, Stephenson then goes and ruins it all (well, part of it, anyway) with the third part where things just fall apart – for some reason, he decided to not tell his tale straight any more but instead approaches all the important events in his narrative at an oblique angle, only telling of them indirectly and second-hand, which gets really annoying after a while and again slows the novel’s speed down to a crawl.I’m really not someone who scolds novel for being pretentious – usually, I find that it is just a convenient (and extremely flimsy) excuse for lazy readers to not have to read novels that are difficult or challenging in any way and which might possibly ask of them to think about what they are reading, or even only just pay attention to it. With Quicksilver, however, I think the shoe fits – this is a wonderful adventure novel (almost) ruined by its pretensions to be something more. Thankfully, Neal Stephenson seems to have realized where his true talents lie, and things improve steadily over the next two volumes.
This book is just too vast to give justice to it in the few lines of this review that I might come up with now.If you are ready to read this, here are some suggestions:1) Start with Cryptonomicon first. You don't need to read this first, but it will help you get used to Stephenson's style, and you'll appreciate Quicksilver better having done so.2) Before reading Quicksilver, spend some time brushing up on some basic English history. (Did you know that London burned? Do you know what the Monmouth Rebellion was, and the Bloody Assizes that followed? Do you know about the interregnum? Do you know that William III deposed James II in a coup?) It would be nice if a timeline could be provided that summarizes the main points of English history that serve as context for this book - I admit I did not know enough myself of the history involved to get full appreciation of the book on my first reading... so now I'll have to read it again some time after doing some historical readings.Perhaps read the wikipedia page on the diary of Samuel Pepys (if not the diary itself). Although he's really just a minor figure in this novel, his diary covers many of the same events that you'll encounter in Quicksilver.3) Be prepared to deal with long digressions and elaborate descriptions. Instead of seeing them as tedious, look for the humor. Stephenson inevitably tries to put some humor into these, and although it's often very dry, it's quite amusing when you see how he's looking askance at the goings-on of the times and persons.4) Beyond the history, take care to understand the geography.5) Take some time to consider the cryptography used in the novel. When you understand just how a "letter within a letter" can be written, you'll appreciate more of Stephenson's particular genius.6) Even though this is hardly a science-fiction novel, it does deal largely with scientists in the Royal Society. Be prepared, then, for descriptions of events seen through the eyes of a trained scientific observer. Something as simple as the motion of a boat's mast can be used scientifically to provide information about how the boat is loaded, as you'll find in the novel. Again, these portions of the book are trademarks of Stephenson's ingenuity, and I enjoyed them immensely.7) Be patient. This is a long book, and not an easy read. If you can keep track of the main characters, you can actually put it away for a time, and return to it later to resume reading. I actually started this book some time ago, reading it only when I had uninterrupted opportunities to digest the novel. (I read other, lighter, works in the interim to keep me occupied and entertained).In fact, after starting this book, I actually began work on a Master's degree, and completed the Master's degree faster than completing the book. That was perhaps a bit too slow, but also tells more about how busy I was instead of describing the nature of the book.8) Revel in the richness of this book. It is indeed a masterpiece, and you can certainly gain more with each reread. This type of book is indeed rare, and its peculiar idiosyncrasies just make it more distinctive in its majesty, not lessening its achievement in any way.
Do You like book Quicksilver (2004)?
I admit it. I have absolutely no desire to finish this book. I'm so very close to the end, but I stopped caring somewhere along the way. I really don't know what it is that keeps me from finishing it. Maybe it's because I only have about 120 pages left and I know that nothing's going to be resolved. Maybe it's because I've read 781 pages and have no idea what the heck is going on. Is there even a plot? Is this book about anything other than history? I can see why people do like it. In fact, I like it myself. I just can't bring myself to pick it up again.
—Sandi
I am beginning the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson. Check this link for further explanation regarding this eight book series. This is a review of the first book, Quicksilver (not the three book volume of the same title).This is a historical novel with two parallel story lines, one following the fictional Daniel Waterhouse as a young man in the late 17th Century and the other framing narrative following him as an old man in 1713 as he remembers his earlier life. Daniel as a young man was a close acquaintance of both Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz. Forty years later in 1713, Waterhouse who is now living in colonial Massachusetts has been asked to return to England to attempt to resolved the bitter dispute between Newton and Leibniz regarding credit for the creation of calculus mathematics. In the 1713 narrative Waterhouse boards a ship leaving Boston harbor which runs into an extended encounter with pirates, including Edward Teach (a.k.a. Blackbeard). During the midst of these adventures he remembers his earlier years, thus the earlier 17th Century narrative.In the earlier story line we learn that Waterhouse was a member of The Royal Society and rubbed shoulders with what seems like every conceivable historical personage in politics and natural philosophy at the time. He was mentored by John Wilkins, founder of the Royal Society. He was a roommate of Isaac Newton's at Cambridge. He had extended conversations with the young Leibniz. He worked as an assistant to Robert Hooke in his scientific experiments. In other words, he was at the core of the beginning of advances in scientific and mathematical thinking during the Enlightenment era. I thoroughly enjoyed Stephenson's description of time, place and historical characters. He does plant some fictional items in the story that correlate with his novel, Cryptonomicon, which is set in the 20th Century. This is a link to my review of Cryptonomicon. Stephenson has characterized the Baroque Cycle as science fiction due to the presence of some anomalous occurrences and the emphasis on themes relating to science and technology. That may be true, but I experienced to book primarily as historical fiction.An interesting quotation:“... are you suggesting that those who study natural philosophy can acquire some kind of occult knowledge--special insight into God’s Creation, not available to the common Bible-reading man?”“Er...I suppose that’s quite clearly what I’m suggesting.”Drake nodded. “That is what I thought. Well, God gave us brains for a reason--not to use those brains would be a sin.”Some links that may be of interest:LINK TO Wikipedia article about the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson.LINK TO my review of King of the Vagabonds (Bk. 2) by Neal Stephenson.LINK TO my review of Odalisque (Bk. 3) by Neal Stephenson.LINK TO my review of The Confusion (Bks. 4 & 5) by Neal Stephenson.LINK TO my review of Solomon's Gold (Bk. 6) by Neal Stephenson.LINK TO my review of Currency (Bk. 7) by Neal Stephenson.LINK TO my review of System of the World (Bk. 8) by Neal Stephenson.
—Clif Hostetler
Well. Where to start with this... Ok. Let us first pretend that there are only two criteria to use when analysing works of fiction, (1) number of characters and (2) richness of plot. Now let us say we are drawing a chart, with quality 1 on the horizontal axis, and quality 2 on the vertical axis. Now we have a space into which we can slot a few books lying around the house. A Dickens novel goes into the upper right quadrant of the grid - many characters and rich plot to bind them together. A Samuel Beckett play would be located upper left - just a few characters, but richly textured interactions between them. Dan Brown? Bottom left I am afraid (ok there are other views but this is me talking now...). And what's in the bottom right quadrant? The London telephone book takes pride of place, situated on the far right and exactly on the axis. And just to the north-west of it we find... Quicksilver.Why? Well let's see. Let me talk about size first. Quicksilver forms part of a sequence of three volumes, each weighing in at some 900 pages. Each volume consists of 3 reasonably stand-alone novels, so essentially we have a series of 9 texts, running to a combined 3000 pages. Indeed, the scope is even more expansive than this and we can think of these 9 novels as a prequel-series to Cryptonomicon, another 900-page tome in which Neal deals with events happening in WWII. So in terms of scope, Neal's work is biblical.So. What happens in the three novels bound up in Quicksilver? The first novel is about a 17th Century natural philosopher, who is recalled to England to mitigate in the quarrel between Leibniz and Newton. The second novel is about the rise and fall of an Oriental slave girl as a merchant in Amsterdam. And the third novel is about the Leibniz/Newton quarrel again. You think that by distilling near 40,000 lines of text down to five I have done the plot injustice?Well I haven't. And this is precisely what bothers me about Neal's first three books. I don't know what they are. I do not think they are novels. But neither do I think they are narrative history, as, for example, Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall. So what are they?I think Neal's work is best described as a tableau of 17th Century life. Let me explain what I mean by this. Let us imagine a detailed, comprehensive historical monograph entitled 17th Century Europe in Politics, Science, Philosophy, and Religion. Our imagined work is a huge achievement in scholarship, its scope dwarving that of Gibbon's Rise and Fall. Now imagine this monograph as a pop-up book, delivering a three-dimensional model of intricate detail, showing all the facets of social life, all the complex interactions of historical persons, all the painful breakthroughs in nascent scientific thought.For the moment, this model is static and not animated. Now we create several figurines that we set into our pop-up model of 17th Century life. We breathe life into these figurines, and they start walking around, interacting now with this person, now with that one, creating an event here, and another one there. We observe what's going on and write it all up, bind it into one book and call it "Quicksilver".Excellent. We have successfully created a tour d'horizon through the world of the 17th Century. It does not matter that our characters do not have depth - they are only vehicles to transport our encyclopaedic knowledge. It does not matter that events do not create and develop a plot - we are not really telling a story. In the end, Neal hands the reader a kaleidoscope to observe the 17th Century. It shows the richness of life in glittering, but confusing colours, and in identifiable, but jumbled shapes. If there is an overall, guiding principle in the work, the disjointed mass of detail and isolated events makes it hard to discern.Quicksilver is to literature what music scores are to music, what a dictionary is to poetry, what a street map is to a metropolis. It shows the detail, but not the "soul".
—Mark Hebwood
