I finished Neal Stephenson’s Quicksilver the day before yesterday, and enjoyed it very much, despite the mixed reviews. In many ways, the book reminded me of another baggy-great faux-historical novel set in the same period, which similarly received scant critical acclaim; Thomas Pynchon’s Mason and Dixon. And Quicksilver is very nearly as good.
Which isn’t to say that the criticisms of Quicksilver are untrue, or unfair. But they still seem to to me to miss the mark. They treat Quicksilver as a more or less conventional novel, and concentrate their fire on its lack of vivid characterization, and its lack of pacing. All true. But I don’t think Quicksilver _is_ a conventional novel, nor does it aspire to be. It’s not really about relations between warm living human beings, although these are thrown in as a sort of garnish, to render the intellectual meat of the novel slightly more palatable. Quicksilver is about the birth of modernity, and how this rather extraordinary scientific, religious, intellectual and political ferment spewed forth the world that we have today (or at least something very like that world). The metaphor of mercury runs through the novel, referring sometimes to money, sometimes to natural science, sometimes to alchemy, sometimes to the palpable explosion of ideas that preceded the Enlightenment, but always, always, to whatever is acting to change things. I reckon that the keystone of the novel is found on p.722-3, where Daniel Waterhouse describes how
This morning, Roger, I sat in this empty courtyard, in the midst of a whirlwind. The whirlwind was invisible; how did I know ‘twas here? Because of the motion it conferred on innumerable scraps of paper, which orbited round me. Had I thought to bring along my instruments I could have taken observations and measured the velocities and plotted the trajectories of those scraps, and if I were as brilliant as Isaac I could have drawn all of those data together into a single unifying picture of the whirlwind. But if I were Leibniz I’d have done none of those things. Instead I’d have asked, Why is the whirlwind here?
This is the question that the novel is structured around. The book depicts the whirlwind of modernity, which catches its various characters in its turbulence, and flings them willy-nilly across Europe and North America. And then enquires as to the nature of that whirlwind, not giving any very satisfactory answer (or, more precisely, giving a variety of unsatisfactory ones). Which is to say that the book is really about the forces shaping history rather than about history itself. It bears the same relationship to a traditional historical novel that Braudel’s history of the Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II bears to a conventional piece of diplomatic history - while individuals turn up here and there in Braudel’s narration, and even serve to illustrate important points, they are in the grip of forces larger than themselves. Stephenson’s project is a very ambitious one; I’m not at all sure that he’s going to succeed. But I’m certainly intrigued enough to look forward eagerly to volumes II and III.
Update: Mark Kleiman also likes Quicksilver a lot. Key quote: “I have no idea why you’re wasting your time reading this weblog when you should be reading Stephenson instead.” He also reminds me that Stephenson himself recommends another of Braudel’s books as a companion read to Quicksilver.
I suspect that if Quicksilver were originally written in Italian, people would be proclaiming it a literary masterpiece.
There seems to be an unwritten list [*] of genre conventions of psychological realism that, when violated, upsets some readers the way errors in SFnal continuity affect the Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons. “Worst Crisis of Faith Evar!”
C.
[*] Unless someone has written it down?
I think Mr. Stephenson can at least make a good go at tackling this invisible monster of a premis, maybe not as well as some but far better than many. While The Diamond Age was not well recieved I thought it was brilliant and I have dreams about Snow Crash.
You’re giving me heart to continue. I bogged down somewhere shortly after the Great Fire of London, but I have to admit, if I’d been simply regarding it as nonfiction, I’d have continued. So I’ll do so.
Of course, I am one of those witless Tolkien fans, so who knows what ghastly aesthetic enormities I might endorse.
Hank babe,
if I was the kind of person who wrote book reviews, that is exactly the kind of book review I’d write - and come to the same conclusion about the same book.
Is there a difference between art and illustration?
The immediate question that jumps out at me, if you are right in your description of the book’s intellectual intention, is whether a novel is the right format to make that attempt. And, if it is, whether Stephenson has done a good job at it.
I don’t think high intellectual aspirations frees a novelist from the responsibility for writing an interesting book with realistic characters, etc. The trick, if you want to be a good novelist, is to design a situation such that the ideas you want to explore flow out naturally from the behavior of the characters you’ve created, and such that the story you’re telling is interesting enough to draw in the reader.
If you can’t manage that, then you’re just writing a bad novel with good ideas.
The immediate question that jumps out at me, if you are right in your description of the book’s intellectual intention, is whether a novel is the right format to make that attempt.
Precisely. The core material Stephenson’s interested in doesn’t need the garnish the novel form gives it; it’s fascinating on its own. And it’s not like Stephenson has shown he can’t write interesting non-fiction.
Carlos: there are people who read Stephenson for psychological realism? Oy.
Patrick - glad that it’s given you the heart to continue (for the record I’m a witless Tolkien fan too). Mind you, I’m fascinated by the history of science, so I was an easy sell for a book like this.
Doug - I think that you’re right for the most part - but there’s an interesting genre of fiction that doesn’t have much in the way of characterization, but that succeeds on its own terms. Borges and Calvino are obvious candidates; in SF there’s Olaf Stapledon’s chillier stuff, which seems to me almost to constitute a genre of its own.
The question is not about whether novels are about characterization or not, but whether literary works- prose or poetry- are or ‘should be’ given the strengths and limitations of the medim about ideas divorced from the means of communication. Most novelists, whatever their subject, will tell you they’re interested primarily in language. The issue is one of form and content. Illustration is the presentation of information. Art is the creation of a unified whole according to the logic of the maker. ‘Artists’ and scare quotes are needed here whatever they may or may not say in public, in the end choose the creation of unity over the presentation of assumptions. Critics and historians supply meanings after the fact. The intentional phallacy rules supreme whether we like it or not.
I’m no fan of Tolkien, or at least I don’t take him very seriously, any more than I take speculative fiction seriously. it’s all illustration of one sort or another.
And Pynchon, by the way, although he is a big fan of illustration, is not an illustrator.
I think analytical philosophers,and those in the sciences prefer creation to observation. It leads to their interest in art forms that are thought of as marginal within their field. Historians and writers prefer observation.
I think think this is also a limitation of analytic philosophy itself.
phallacy!!!??
I’m thinking too much.
I’m sure this one will haunt me for a while
Analytic phlilosophers prefer creation to observation? What does that mean?
Also, what is a “witless Tolkien fan”?
Try “An Instance of the Fingerpost” by Iain Pears for a philosophical mystery novel set in this intellectual period
I think there are very real differences between invented systems and observed ones, as between rational systems and practical ones. I assume the world is more complex than any image we can make of it, so I’m interested in plotting the past before predicting the future. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the assumption is that we’re not able to predict beyond a small number the the future impacts of a ball moving at a constant rate across the surface of a pool table. Makers of logical systems always seem to end up leaving things out of their equations. Rational actor theory; vulgar Marxism; Positivism; Objectivism; Modernist as opposed to merely modern architecture; science and speculative fiction; are all simplifications to be reapplied over complexity. The usual, historical, function of art is the opposite of this, to get bogged down in the details of observation and of what is being observed. Art and in a sense the study of history is predicated on a sort of Zeno’s paradox: From a detail, to a detail of a detail, to a detail of a detail of a detail, to a detail that is relevant to us but which may not have been important to… and on and on.
That’s certainly Jane Austen’s relationship to her time. That’s the relationship of Shakespeare to his. Pick a name out of the past. The patterns are the same.
I don’t think any Science Fiction novel, defined by the specifics of what is considered distinct in Sci Fi, will ever be as subtle as intellectually subtle or as historically important as Hamlet. Why is this so? What’s the difference? It’s that Shakespeare did not plan or ‘create’ or ‘design’ systems, he observed and twisted and played with the ones he knew.
Religious and conservative critics of science understand this, but for reasons of dogma are unable to make their arguments in secular terms.
Josh: I don’t think many people read Stephenson for psychological realism (though a few suspects come to mind), but I do think much of the disappointment many people have had with Quicksilver comes from unfulfilled expectations along those lines.
Which is odd. The English language novel has been both historically and recently an overstuffed grab-bag freak show of weirdness. “Yeah, let’s put in a long digression on the semiotics of whiteness! Then a chapter done in the style of teenage girls’ magazine articles! Then a dream sequence about a harmonica falling down a toilet! Then some stuff about bears. White bears. A lot of stuff. If I should see a white bear, what should I say? If I should never see a white bear, what then? Did my father, mother, uncle, aunt, brothers or sisters, ever see a white bear? Is the white bear worth seeing? Is it better than a BLACK ONE?”
Pass the Cap’n Crunch.
From where comes this bizarre notion that Stephenson can’t write realistic characters? Randy Waterhouse was one of the most spot-on, nuanced, and insightful portraits of a maturing adult geek that I’ve seen in fiction.
Waterhouse in Quicksilver was a well-developed and realistic character, too; hell, most of the Royal Society members were drawn with superb deftness.
I’m just not getting this complaint at all.
(I do understand people who bitch that Quicksilver doesn’t have a plot, because… well, it doesn’t. It very much reads like fictionalized history, in which things happen at narratively inconvenient times, promising plot leads peter out, major characters die before their plot arc is done, and the storyline is just all over the damn place.)
Strangely enough, Stephenson was recommended to me just last week, and I’m now tearing through ‘Snow Crash’ and ‘Cryptonomicon’ in parallel - he’s absolutely amazing, and I look forward to ‘Quicksilver’.
(I can’t help but admire a guy who puts Perl scripts into his novels. It’s clearly the right place for them.)
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review