The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

Welcome to the discussion from the era 1980-1999 of The Diamond Age: or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, by Neal Stephenson, originally published in 1995.

So, who has read this before?

At this point I'm particularly wondering about the commitment required--it's some 500 pp--but maybe it's a quick read? Or maybe it's so juicy one is glad it's long?

Also, I'm not sure if I'll be able to read it conveniently as my favorite go-to libraries don't even have it. Who all is planning to read it this month, or at least knows it well enough to discuss it?

Cheryl wrote: "Welcome to the discussion from the era 1980-1999 of The Diamond Age: or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, by Neal Stephenson, originally published in 1995.

So, who ha..."

Sorry. Not me, this month. Too many other comittments.

I read this years ago and remember really enjoying it. It may be on the long side, but I don't remember having any problem finishing it.

I've read it two times: around 2012 and the last December. I liked it both time - this book benefits from re-reading. It is quite long and pace is unequal - great start, slower middle and then Stephenson suddenly thinks "oh it is long enough" and rather rapidly wraps it up.

At the start the author actively shows new world, so for a non-native reader like me, there was a problem: "don't I miss something? What's happening?"

I read it a few years ago and it was a great read. In the first part of the novel, Stephenson describes how nanobots could potentially reshape the world and human life. Just that makes it a very stimulating read.

He also describe a post-scarcity society (thanks to the nanotechnology) and a post-nation-state world. People choose a group called a Phyle, as nation-states are now absent from the world, and they choose it because they like its ideology, not because they are born in it. Althought it sounds like people will just choose the Phyle in which they are born cause that is what they know and are familiar with.

Stephenson describes essentially a utopia (or is it?).

He also kills off cyberpunk (literally and figuratively) and moves beyond it.

From the perspective of the evolution of science-fiction, it's a important work.

I read it in the 90's. Loved it then. Not sure I want to re-read.

I agree with Oleksander that the end could be better. I feel that way about all of Stephenson's endings, though. There is enough good stuff in it that that isn't a major problem for me. I think most of you will probably enjoy it.

Nothing about this book or author appeals to me. I like good characters and a human element in my stories. From what I have read in posts about this book and in this thread, I'd be disappointed.

Dan wrote: "Nothing about this book or author appeals to me."

Tastes differ, but Neal Stephenson is one of influential SF authors of the last 30 years. With this book he ends cyberpunk fashion to a large extent. Maybe try his earlier books first, e.g. Zodiac, which is nano-tech meets eco-SF

I read this and loved it last summer. I've read probably 50 books since then, and this one keeps floating back to the surface of my mind.

I found it a quick read, but that's a subjective thing. Here's my review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

As far as Dan's comment on a "human element," I'm an Asimov and LeGuin fan, so I probably shouldn't say much. I do remember liking the characters, although I definitely read more for plot and theme than character.

I read this last summer so I won't re-read it but I will certainly join in the discussion.

Like Marc-Andre, I enjoyed the part early in the story where Stephenson "kills off" Cyberpunk. It's a funny moment in the story, but also a signal that we are moving past that genre, like it or not. The neo-Victorianism that fills cyberpunk's gap is a sign that societal mores can change quickly and in perhaps unexpected ways,

Although there is plenty of nano-tech I thought Stephenson crafted and developed some interesting characters, particularly the young female protagonist Nell, whose growth and development have quite a bit to say about nature vs nurture.

I enjoyed the book and thought it was insightful and entertaining, although as mentioned it does drag in places and the ending is abrupt. I gave it 5 stars, the same rating I gave Stephenson's Snowcrash.

So hey, I hope y'all aren't waiting on me. I've decided not to read it, so I hope that the nominator or at least one of those who voted it for it can lead at least a bit of a discussion.

Maybe consider why you chose it, and whether you are glad you did.

Or talk more about it's influence on SF. Is there anything nowadays that may not have been written, if this had not?

Or about the coherence and believability of the story, and whether it holds up, and whether one has to be familiar with cyberpunk first.

Have at it!

Given its age, being published in the mid 1990s, there might be more discussion on what influenced it. I started it & I could certainly see Jane Austen's & William Gibson's influences. I don't care much for the Victorian age, steampunk, or cyberpunk, so I'm not reading it either.

Jim wrote: "Given its age, being published in the mid 1990s, there might be more discussion on what influenced it.."

For me it is influenced by cyberpunk like a grown up kid influenced by their old toy - it brings warm memories but it doesn't send you back in time to actually enjoy playing it. As for Victorian, my money were not on actual Victorian era writers but on modern economic historians, who ask why the industrial age came around 1750 and why in Europe, esp. in the Great Britain. I mean writers like Deirdre N. McCloskey and Joel Mokyr

Jim wrote: " I could certainly see Jane Austen's & William Gibson's influences. I don't care much for the Victorian age, steampunk, or cyberpunk, so I'm not reading it either."

What Jim said.

I've only tried one of Stephenson's books and abandoned it rather quickly. If this were available in my library as an audiobook, I'd give it a shot, but I've got a backlog of visual reads.

I'd definitely like to hear what y'all have to say about it, though.

I read this when it first came out, and I remember that I loved it, but I don't remember anything about the actual story so I'm happy to do a reread. I also loved Snowcrash, but I was quite disappointed in his later works-- their descriptions sound great but they are soooo looong and it's hard to stay focused. Diamond Age's 500 pages is a novella compared to some of his later books.

I love the world building and technology in this novel. I really enjoyed the first part of the book, but it seemed to run out of momentum in the second half. I was really emotionally invested in Nell in the first part, but found myself gradually losing touch with her in the second half. It seemed that the story started to go off the rails with the Drummers, and all the politics and rebellion/fighting just lost me. I still enjoyed the castle puzzles in the Primer, especially the Turing castle.

Suki wrote: "I love the world building and technology in this novel. I really enjoyed the first part of the book, but it seemed to run out of momentum in the second half. I was really emotionally invested in Ne..."

I agree with you Suki. I thought the second half was not quite as good as the first half, and the ending felt rushed. The Primer stories were great! I still liked it a lot though.

Yeah, I'm not sure where Stephenson was going with all the politics.

I also dnf. The language was often difficult for me, so it would have taken me far too long to read it. Too bad, I really wanted to read this one.

I started listening to it and it didn’t grab me, now I can see why.

I find it interesting that a novel who influenced the sci-fi genre isn't really read or enjoyed by the, dare I say, casual reader.

Marc-André wrote: "I find it interesting that a novel who influenced the sci-fi genre isn't really read or enjoyed by the, dare I say, casual reader."

I guess 'casual' it too broad term. For example I liked and my friends (who read SF) liked it too - so for my little self-selected and biased sample :) it was fine

Marc-André wrote: "I find it interesting that a novel who influenced the sci-fi genre isn't really read or enjoyed by the, dare I say, casual reader."

Dan's Law: The book that normally gets nominated and wins polls for book of the month in all discussion groups are books written at a level more advanced than the readers of said discussion groups. These winning books have a great reputation, but are seldom actually read by the readership that invariably votes them in and never discussed in a meaningful way.

I believe there are a class of well-regarded books that at base are so self-referential, like obscurantist lyric poetry, that they essentially have no meaning to anyone not in the know. Delany and Zelazny, as best I can tell, originated this trend in SF. Authors like Stephenson, Gaiman, Hamilton, and Mieville continue it. That, or I'm just an idiot.

LOL! I almost agree, although I don't think Zelazny belongs in the list. His books can be a bit weird, but they're fun.

Dan wrote: "Dan's Law: The book that normally gets nominated and wins polls for book of the month in all discussion groups are books written at a level more advanced than the readers of said discussion groups. "

:)
If we take history of monthly reads of this very group, there are a lot of Golden age stuff, which is hardly high-brow

Why be snobby about books? If it doesn’t grab someone, so what. I have both the paper and the audio in my library and will give them a go when the time is right.

Jim wrote: "LOL! I almost agree, although I don't think Zelazny belongs in the list. His books can be a bit weird, but they're fun."

Zelazny totally went over my head with "Lord of Light". I just don't know, or want to know, enough about Indian deities to get the references.

Delaney goes over my head, too, but I enjoy him in some cases.

As for this book, I enjoyed it very very much when I read it, I just don't feel like re-reading it.

Definitely not all writing styles are for everyone. Zelazny often assumes a fairly extensive knowledge of classic literature & whatever subject he's dealing with. More than that, his experiments in style can be tough to get on a first read, but they're so much fun on a reread. I detest some of his books with stream-of-consciousness & dream sequences, though. I've never really cared for The Dream Master.

IMO, a lot of the winners of polls are just based on name recognition either of the author or the title. Not always or fully, but pretty often.

I just found that Stephenson has an upcoming book that is described as "short". I find that hard to believe. I like very much several of his books but have been turned off from reading more because of the length.

We shall see whether Atmosphæra Incognita really does deserve to be called short.

Ed wrote: "We shall see whether Atmosphæra Incognita really does deserve to be called short."

It does say 104 pages on Goodreads. That's pretty short. I didn't even think Stephenson could write a grocery list in less than 200 pages.