12 Comments

Since when did life become something you have to buy? Jack London

Expand full comment

This was fantastic. Thank you ❤️

Expand full comment

My pleasure, really! Fiction holds so many keys to reading our times properly, and the future looming ahead. Stephenson makes a great case for a "wait a minute" moment...

Expand full comment

INDEED! :)

Expand full comment

His books have too many pages. No chance in today’s quick-click & selfie-engaged society.

Expand full comment

Ah. I don't think long form is dead, far from it. But book sales numbers would say you're right.

Expand full comment

I’ve always said the Neal writes just around the corner and often will read a headline that reminds me of one of his books. Could explain why he generally has a poor ending! lol. Such a brilliant writer. And why my favourite book is anathem. Which is your favourite?

Expand full comment

I remember the Baroque Cycle feeling so broad in scope and wild, yet so deep...

Expand full comment

Such a great summary. Several of these books have been bouncing around in my head as comparisons to our current timeline. I think between Stephenson and the Simpsons we have the future pretty well mapped out.

Expand full comment

How do you learn how to understand how deep the cage goes? How long does it take to learn that if one did not spend one's preceding years building up a huge background of knowledge in a disciplined way? Can one truly "rise to the need of the time", then? What are those needs? I feel like being asked to "run a marathon as a couch potato with 30 days to get ready" in this.

Also, what do we call an "appearance and disappearance of magic"? Does the world literally change as we start looking at it differently, i.e. do the laws of cause and effect shift so things that were previously causally efficacious become less so and conversely, literally like a dream? Or is everything that was before possible still possible now, but we just have to avoid being funneled in perception? But moreover, should we see the "scientific" and "magical" views or ideas necessarily as a competition? What would it mean if we could pile together the full set of observations (i.e. not theories - just hard data) made under both views, as they are, and assert both are simultaneously entirely correct, legitimate, and/or "reasonable"? Where would that get us?

Expand full comment

It's not about book knowledge or rote if that's what you're asking. Far from it.

I'll write more about the cage soon. And "both are true" that you raise is not a bad starting point.

Expand full comment

Sure, but how do you do that? How do you get that knowledge of whatever kind it is, if not book or rote - *fast*, where the term "fast" is defined by the parameters the moving situation sets forward? But also you must have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge to write these posts and I'm sure a lot of it comes from books, articles, etc. even if not all. (I mean, Neal Stephenson himself wrote ... books, even if fiction books, still books and which still contain "knowledge" in the form of *ideas*.) And so how can one rapidly close that competence gap to be able to become *ahead* of the curve and *majorly* affect the world for the better?

Expand full comment