Comments on: System Error http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/05/system-error/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:43:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Charles Dodgson http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/05/system-error/comment-page-1/#comment-56131 Charles Dodgson Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:55:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2720#comment-56131 Hmmm... there's something else in this review which may not be quite right, which I'll mention here because I've seen it a lot. Many reviews say that the story is about old systems falling into disuse and oblivion as their successors are created and emerge: experiment-based science succeeding alchemy, regulation of society by markets succeeding regulation by titled nobility. But Stephenson puts a somewhat different view in the mouth of one of his characters: <blockquote><em> It has been my view for some years that a new System of the World is being created around us. I used to suppose that it would drive out and annihilate any old Systems. But things I have seen recently ... have convinced me that new Systems never replace old ones, but only surround and encapsulate them, even as, under a microsope, we may see that living within our bodies are animalcules, smaller and simpler than us, and yet thriving even as we thrive. ... And so I say that Alchemy shall not vanish, as I always hoped. Rather, it shall be encapsulated within the new System of the World, and become a familar and even comforting presence there, though its name may change and its practitioners speak no more about the Philospher's Stone. </em></blockquote> <p>It's always risky to take a character as speaking for the author, but this dovetails well with a number of incidents in the book where aspects and artifacts of Systems far older than any of the characters, unknown and partially hidden, are found to be serviceable and put to use. <p>I've got some more thoughts on this on my own blog <a href="http://thelookingglass.blogspot.com/2004/12/about-week-ago-john-quiggin-asked-on.html">here</a>. (Mild spoiler warning: I also talk there about the fantasy elements in the book that have me puzzled, as I mentioned in earlier comments on CT; I've tried to avoid giving away plot points in doing that, but in order to comment, I do have to say what they are.) </p></p> Hmmm… there’s something else in this review which may not be quite right, which I’ll mention here because I’ve seen it a lot. Many reviews say that the story is about old systems falling into disuse and oblivion as their successors are created and emerge: experiment-based science succeeding alchemy, regulation of society by markets succeeding regulation by titled nobility. But Stephenson puts a somewhat different view in the mouth of one of his characters:
It has been my view for some years that a new System of the World is being created around us. I used to suppose that it would drive out and annihilate any old Systems. But things I have seen recently … have convinced me that new Systems never replace old ones, but only surround and encapsulate them, even as, under a microsope, we may see that living within our bodies are animalcules, smaller and simpler than us, and yet thriving even as we thrive. … And so I say that Alchemy shall not vanish, as I always hoped. Rather, it shall be encapsulated within the new System of the World, and become a familar and even comforting presence there, though its name may change and its practitioners speak no more about the Philospher’s Stone.

It’s always risky to take a character as speaking for the author, but this dovetails well with a number of incidents in the book where aspects and artifacts of Systems far older than any of the characters, unknown and partially hidden, are found to be serviceable and put to use.

I’ve got some more thoughts on this on my own blog here. (Mild spoiler warning: I also talk there about the fantasy elements in the book that have me puzzled, as I mentioned in earlier comments on CT; I’ve tried to avoid giving away plot points in doing that, but in order to comment, I do have to say what they are.)

]]>