SNOWCRASH

zalaz alaza

hawaiin burger genie 5.04 LTS
Bronze
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Messages
501
Reaction score
974
Awards
143
Website
zalazalaza.xyz
Between now and April 16, which is when the reading of Anna Karenina is scheduled to end and the next novel begins, I will be reading Snowcrash by Neal Stephenson. I normally read about 20 pages/day but could be more or less. If anyone else wants to join it is quite easy reading. Enjoyable so far, 50 pages in.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Yabba

Ex Fed
Joined
Nov 11, 2022
Messages
346
Reaction score
900
Awards
104
Damn, I hope you enjoyed, as it's my favourite cyberpunk book; and definitely a classic. The way the book can meld action, comedy, and world building is masterful.

Anyways, I'm wondering what you guys think of the books ideas on mimetic viruses. Personally I thought the way the theme was introduced through a (somewhat) historical view, was surprising for science fiction.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

outervoid

what will it take to make you capitulate?
Joined
Jul 5, 2023
Messages
41
Reaction score
107
Awards
17
snow crash was full of bad dad jokes and a creepy sex scene, and i don't like stephenson's tongue in cheek writing style nor the development of his characters. it's a cyberpunk classic, sure, and everyone should read it for that reason, but even then the sprawl trilogy felt like a better world to me.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Steingar

Traveler
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
93
Awards
25
Just going to drop in to say that Snowcrash is one of, if not the, worst books I've ever read.

I'm a big cyberpunk fan and read Neuromancer when I was 14. After re-reading it again this year I thought "hey let's read the other sub-genre classic, Snowcrash! Everyone says it's good".

Nope. The book is atrociously structured. The action grinds to a halt every 20 pages for an endless rambling monologue about neuoro-linguistic reprogramming or some pulpy schlock. The main character feels like every nerdy loser's fantasy of how cool they "actually are", but it really just shows off the author's insecurities. "Hey you're a computer nerd but you're also a badass sword wielding ninja dude who pulls the chicks no problem, way past cool!" (Note: no shade on computer nerds, I'm one too, I'm more just criticising the terrible characterisation.)

Pretty much all the characters are underdeveloped or badly developed, the plot is moved forward almost entirely by "and then this happened"s. Not to mention his creepy views on women and sex (15 yo sex scene anyone?). I tend to give a soft pass to this stuff because old-school sci-fi writers are uniquely terrible at writing women, but considering this came out years after Neuromancer, and William Gibson actually wrote Molly pretty decently, I really don't think he has an excuse.

Furthermore, his writing is very tongue in cheek, which ok fine, but it robs the story of any sense of gravitas, and gets Neil thinking that he's way better at writing satire than he actually he is (there's a really obnoxious subplot about how stupid and smelly the government and bureaucrats are; like, ok Ayn Rand).

Good points? The opening 20 pages hook you in quite well and a lot of his satirical/dystopian ideas are cool, I think you can draw a direct through line between the world he's constructed and Infinite Jest, weirdly.

But overall I think it's highly overrated and genuinely not worth reading other than if you REALLY want to read the foundational texts of cyberpunk.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

zalaz alaza

hawaiin burger genie 5.04 LTS
Bronze
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Messages
501
Reaction score
974
Awards
143
Website
zalazalaza.xyz
Just going to drop in to say that Snowcrash is one of, if not the, worst books I've ever read.

I'm a big cyberpunk fan and read Neuromancer when I was 14. After re-reading it again this year I thought "hey let's read the other sub-genre classic, Snowcrash! Everyone says it's good".

Nope. The book is atrociously structured. The action grinds to a halt every 20 pages for an endless rambling monologue about neuoro-linguistic reprogramming or some pulpy schlock. The main character feels like every nerdy loser's fantasy of how cool they "actually are", but it really just shows off the author's insecurities. "Hey you're a computer nerd but you're also a badass sword wielding ninja dude who pulls the chicks no problem, way past cool!" (Note: no shade on computer nerds, I'm one too, I'm more just criticising the terrible characterisation.)

Pretty much all the characters are underdeveloped or badly developed, the plot is moved forward almost entirely by "and then this happened"s. Not to mention his creepy views on women and sex (15 yo sex scene anyone?). I tend to give a soft pass to this stuff because old-school sci-fi writers are uniquely terrible at writing women, but considering this came out years after Neuromancer, and William Gibson actually wrote Molly pretty decently, I really don't think he has an excuse.

Furthermore, his writing is very tongue in cheek, which ok fine, but it robs the story of any sense of gravitas, and gets Neil thinking that he's way better at writing satire than he actually he is (there's a really obnoxious subplot about how stupid and smelly the government and bureaucrats are; like, ok Ayn Rand).

Good points? The opening 20 pages hook you in quite well and a lot of his satirical/dystopian ideas are cool, I think you can draw a direct through line between the world he's constructed and Infinite Jest, weirdly.

But overall I think it's highly overrated and genuinely not worth reading other than if you REALLY want to read the foundational texts of cyberpunk.
yeah, i didn't like it either
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Collision

Green Tea Ice Cream
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
381
Reaction score
1,420
Awards
126
Snow Crash is one of my favorite novels and so it makes me a little sad to see that so many people don't like it. I wonder if, perhaps, the book is an artifact of a time and place that is hard to understand without any first hand experience. It's odd to read criticism like, "the main character feels like every nerdy loser's fantasy of how cool they 'actually are'," because, of course, that's the joke. Stephenson's style, which often contains long technical digressions, certainly won't appeal to everyone.

Anyway, it's always a little amusing to me to see how people react to the depictions of teenage or child sexuality in fiction. There's so much performative angst online about it. Here are some other novels I think you should all read and be grossed out by:
  • Lolita
  • 1Q84
  • It
  • Josephine Mutzenbacher
Alternatively, just go read stories written by actual 15 year-old girls on Wattpad.
 
Last edited:
Virtual Cafe Awards
Nope. The book is atrociously structured. The action grinds to a halt every 20 pages for an endless rambling monologue about neuoro-linguistic reprogramming or some pulpy schlock. The main character feels like every nerdy loser's fantasy of how cool they "actually are", but it really just shows off the author's insecurities. "Hey you're a computer nerd but you're also a badass sword wielding ninja dude who pulls the chicks no problem, way past cool!" (Note: no shade on computer nerds, I'm one too, I'm more just criticising the terrible characterisation.)
I think he should get some credit for creating Sword Art Online for laughs before it became an actual genre unironically. That said, completely agree with the 20 page monologues and, unfortunately, this is Stephenson at his most restrained. His later books are filled with this shit to a Randian excess and it's why I haven't been able to finish any of them. I just end up screaming "Nobody fucking talks like this!" at the pages and then throwing it against the wall.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Sidewinder91

Active Traveler
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
174
Reaction score
292
Awards
54
My personal take is that Snow Crash isn't some deep and philosophical exploration of the relationship between mankind and technology like Blade Runner, Neuromancer, or Ghost in the Shell. It's really more just a critique of cyberpunk as a genre. Specifically badly written cyberpunk.

If you go into it expecting something intellectual, you're gonna have a bad time. It's really just a stupid (albeit well written) Pink mohawk Shadowrun adventure, with some interesting science to back it up.
 
Last edited:

Sidewinder91

Active Traveler
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
174
Reaction score
292
Awards
54
people don't hold it up like that, though. they act like it is one of the archetypal cyberpunk books. maybe that says something about cyberpunk itself.
I think it just says that Cyberpunk fans are obsessed with the idea that Cyberpunk is some kind of intellectual movement about that thing they like.*

So if something is both Cyberpunk and Good, then some Emperor's New Clothes fuckery happens and they all come up with some analysis about how it's deep and meaningful.

*Note that 'the thing they like' changes from decade to decade. Back in the day everyone insisted that Cyberpunk was totally for reals about being anti-establishment, nowadays I think the general zeitgeist is that it's leftist or something, to the point where I've seen people on >redditcostanzayeahrightsmirk shocked that a Japanese cyberpunk game featured a policeman as its main character.
 

Yabba

Ex Fed
Joined
Nov 11, 2022
Messages
346
Reaction score
900
Awards
104
I think it just says that Cyberpunk fans are obsessed with the idea that Cyberpunk is some kind of intellectual movement about that thing they like.*

So if something is both Cyberpunk and Good, then some Emperor's New Clothes fuckery happens and they all come up with some analysis about how it's deep and meaningful.

*Note that 'the thing they like' changes from decade to decade. Back in the day everyone insisted that Cyberpunk was totally for reals about being anti-establishment, nowadays I think the general zeitgeist is that it's leftist or something, to the point where I've seen people on >redditcostanzayeahrightsmirk shocked that a Japanese cyberpunk game featured a policeman as its main character.
Personally I think that Cyberpunk is just scifi crime fiction, that's more down to earth, literally. However I still agree that Snowcrash is a critique of the genre at the time, but it was also an improvement (at least in my opinion).
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Sidewinder91

Active Traveler
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
174
Reaction score
292
Awards
54
Personally I think that Cyberpunk is just scifi crime fiction, that's more down to earth, literally.
Do not cite the deep magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written.

However I still agree that Snowcrash is a critique of the genre at the time, but it was also an improvement (at least in my opinion).
It does some things I don't like, but I would rather read it than some shit like Shadowrun: Choose Your Enemies Carefully.

It's Mystery of the Droods, but somehow with less likeable characters. Maybe having a Elf hacker who talks like a Charles Dickens character seemed like a good idea on paper, but good lord Dodger is annoying and I would take Hiro Protagonist over him any day.
 
Last edited:

Yabba

Ex Fed
Joined
Nov 11, 2022
Messages
346
Reaction score
900
Awards
104
Oh sorry.
It does some things I don't like, but I would rather read it than some shit like Shadowrun: Choose Your Enemies Carefully.

It's Mystery of the Droods, but somehow with less likeable characters. Maybe having a Elf hacker who talks like a Charles Dickens character seemed like a good idea on paper, but good lord Dodger is annoying and I would take Hiro Protagonist over him any day.
Yeah I've heard that the Shadowrun books are shit; but the franchise has been around for long enough that I'm sure there's a good peice of media out there.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Taleisin

Lab-coat Illuminatus
Bronze
Joined
Nov 8, 2021
Messages
636
Reaction score
3,316
Awards
213
the differing opinions in this thread make me want to read snowcrash
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Steingar

Traveler
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
93
Awards
25
Snow Crash is one of my favorite novels and so it makes me a little sad to see that so many people don't like it. I wonder if, perhaps, the book is an artifact of a time and place that is hard to understand without any first hand experience. It's odd to read criticism like, "the main character feels like every nerdy loser's fantasy of how cool they 'actually are'," because, of course, that's the joke. Stephenson's style, which often contains long technical digressions, certainly won't appeal to everyone.

Anyway, it's always a little amusing to me to see how people react to the depictions of teenage or child sexuality in fiction. There's so much performative angst online about it. Here are some other novels I think you should all read and be grossed out by:
  • Lolita
  • 1Q84
  • It
  • Josephine Mutzenbacher
Alternatively, just go read stories written by actual 15 year-old girls on Wattpad.

I disagree on the characterisation being a joke (or at least, a good one) or that we're missing the point because it's an artefact of time or place. It's not hard to read something like Don Quixote or Candide (hell even 120 days of Sodom if you're feeling really edgy) and see the obvious use of exaggeration to satirise an idea or convention. Hiro Protagonist is obviously meant to be that to at least some degree (look at his name for god sake) but his "way past cool" badassery is imparted with way too much sincerity and way too little satirical point. Maybe that reveals a flaw in Neil's style, but either way, it comes off poorly for the story and the character.

Besides that, your comment on the reaction to child sexuality is either disingenuous or missing the point I'm trying to make. This is an adult dude who should know better writing a scene that serves no real purpose, and poorly at that. It's funny the text's you mention, because:
  • 'Lolita' is a no holds barred assault on exactly the self-justifying mentality that results in the sexualisation of children by older men (it is one of my favourite books fyi)
  • 'It' has the childhood orgy scene which is exactly as bizarre and pointless as the underage sex in Snowcrash.
  • Wattpad fanfic is literally being written by 15 yo girls. The existence of youth sexuality does not equate to full grown men who should know better writing it into their stories at the same level as the shitty fanfic writers, which Neil (and King) did
Haven't read the others you mentioned.

Anyway, my criticism is not about underage sex or even pedophilia being represented in media, it's about it being presented in a way that is...not shit? Because otherwise any hack can throw that theme in there with only one hand on the keyboard and call it a day. (Examples of texts that deals with the theme in a much better or more interesting way are Lolita by Narbokov like you mentioned, and Love + Pop by Ryu Murakami, which was adapted into an even better film by Hideaki Anno).
 
Last edited:
Virtual Cafe Awards

Steingar

Traveler
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
93
Awards
25
the differing opinions in this thread make me want to read snowcrash
Absolutely if you're interested you should. I'm at a point where I'm less interested in books that are universally liked (which implies a 'lowest common denominator' level of quality) and moreso those that are divisive, because it implies there's something to them that makes people get excited enough to argue and think about them more deeply.

It doesn't change the fact that the book is shit, but you can figure that out for yourself.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Collision

Green Tea Ice Cream
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
381
Reaction score
1,420
Awards
126
I disagree on the characterisation being a joke (or at least, a good one)
You can disagree that it's a joke, but I think, just based on a frank reading of the text, it's meant to be one. Especially, the characterization of Hiro as a cool guy. I realize he is introduced as, "last of the freelance hackers," and, "greatest sword fighter in the world." I realize that he sounds pretty cool. Almost everything else we learn about Hiro indicates that this isn't the intended reading of these statements though. For example, the next line of his business card reveals he is a stringer (i.e., an unemployed contractor hoping to hit it big selling data). We also learn that he lives in a self-storage unit. Finally, we learn that he probably isn't the greatest sword fighter in the world either. The following is from chapter 13 (at least in my edition):
"Did you win your sword fight?"

"Of course I won the fucking sword fight," Hiro says. "I'm the greatest sword fighter in the world."

"And you wrote the software."

"Yeah. That, too," Hiro says.
I think the intended reading is that Hiro has a big ego even though, like most good cyberpunk protagonists, he is a down and out loser. He's a guy who was successful in his youth and can't get over the fact that he folded his hand too early. He's also a guy lying about his sword fighting skills by conflating them with the online sword fighting game that he wrote. To further support this idea, at the beginning of chapter 36, Stephenson writes:
Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world. If I moved to a martial arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. If my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad.
I think, if you take the novel's characterization of Hiro (or a number of other characters) as serious after it says these things then you're not paying attention. Whether or not you find this to be funny is a matter of taste.

or that we're missing the point because it's an artefact of time or place. It's not hard to read something like Don Quixote or Candide (hell even 120 days of Sodom if you're feeling really edgy) and see the obvious use of exaggeration to satirise an idea or convention.
I don't know if other posters in this thread who dislike the book are missing the point. I think you are because your statements indicate that you didn't understand key ideas from the narrative. I don't see the point in comparing Snow Crash, a comedy cyberpunk novel from 1992, to Don Quixote or Candide. Sure, those books are probably better written comedies than Snow Crash. Alternatively, they might be easier to understand because hundreds of years have gone by between their publishing and now. Far more time and energy has been spent analyzing old classics than Snow Crash. Ideas from and about books that old have had far more time to enter public consciousness. The public has had far more time to grapple with their meanings.

The reason I think that Snow Crash might be a less than universal experience is that, to me, many of the characters and concepts in the novel require some working knowledge of 1990s California. Stephenson's writing is often critical, and beyond criticizing silly and over the top cyberpunk fiction he is criticizing a number of other things in Snow Crash. Hiro, Juanita, and Da5id are all, at least in my reading, obviously meant to take the types of Silicon Valley start-up guys to their extremes. L. Bob Rife, the novel's antagonist, is essentially L. Ron Hubbard complete with his own SeaOrg. FOQNEs and burbclaves are poking fun at the type of gated HoA communities found all over Southern California and, of course, at their NIMBY residents. These things all exist in other times and places too, so it's not as though only I could ever get Snow Crash. I do think having first-hand experience with these types of people and places makes it more obvious what Stephenson is joking about though.

Additionally, I think it's probably harder to read Snow Crash today because parts of its story has entered public consciousness with limited or no context. In 1992, when the book was published, no one was going to have any preconceptions about what the Metaverse was. Nor were they going to come to the book with an understanding that Google Earth was inspired by the Earth program in the novel. Even the concept of virtual reality would have probably been science-fiction to almost all readers in 1992. Today, it's much easier to pick Snow Crash up with a series of assumptions based on how a bunch of tech guys understood the book. For the most part, I don't think those tech guys understood it. Actually, I suspect that very few of them have even read it.

Besides that, your comment on the reaction to child sexuality is either disingenuous or missing the point I'm trying to make. This is an adult dude who should know better writing a scene that serves no real purpose, and poorly at that. It's funny the text's you mention, because:
  • 'Lolita' is a no holds barred assault on exactly the self-justifying mentality that results in the sexualisation of children by older men (it is one of my favourite books fyi)
  • 'It' has the childhood orgy scene which is exactly as bizarre and pointless as the underage sex in Snowcrash.
  • Wattpad fanfic is literally being written by 15 yo girls. The existence of youth sexuality does not equate to full grown men who should know better writing it into their stories at the same level as the shitty fanfic writers, which Neil (and King) did
I find it hard to accept that the scene serves no purpose. The dentata device that is the central point of the scene is introduced at the very beginning of the novel. It needs a pay-off. At the point in the novel you're discussing Y.T. has been taken to the antagonists base of operations and is in a vulnerable position. Even though she's not directly under the influence of the Snow Crash drug or virus, Y.T. realizes she is being manipulated. After she realizes that she is being, "brainwashed," Y.T. encounters Raven. Raven takes her from her place working in a cafeteria on the Raft almost explicitly to have sex with her. We know Raven would do this kind of thing because he's a man with a tattoo on his forehead that reads, "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL." Stephenson even reminds of this in the same scene. We know that Y.T. would go with him because we know that she wants to escape the Raft. We also know that Y.T. is sexually interested in older men because she, earlier in the novel, considers having sex with Hiro. The entire scene that bothers you is maybe just over a page of text in chapter 52. It's purpose is to give a pay-off to the dentata device that Stephenson references several times earlier in the story. Also this scene exists to explain how Y.T. could get away from a man like Raven and why Raven would want to kill her. You're welcome to think that Stephenson should not have written his novel this way but the scene clearly does serve a real purpose.

Just briefly, I also think the scene in It is justified. It can roughly be divided into two parts. The first portion of the novel is largely devoted to the events of the characters' childhoods. The second is devoted to their return to defeat the monster that tormented them as children. The point in the novel with the sex scene serves as the turning point between the narrative focused on the protagonists' childhood and their return in adulthood. Similarly, a first sexual experience is often considered to be a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood. At a surface level it might appear to have no purpose and be gratuitous. However, I believe it makes sense as a narrative device dividing the adult and child sections of the book. Like with Snow Crash, I don't see any harm in it and I didn't find it disruptive or out of place in the story.

Anyway, my criticism is not about underage sex or even pedophilia being represented in media, it's about it being presented in a way that is...not shit?
How should Snow Crash be changed so that it presents underage sex in a way that is not shit? Why should Stephenson have known better than to write what he did?
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Steingar

Traveler
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
93
Awards
25
I think, if you take the novel's characterization of Hiro (or a number of other characters) as serious after it says these things then you're not paying attention. Whether or not you find this to be funny is a matter of taste.

I acknowledge your point that the reader is given ample opportunity to see Hiro as being a satirical character. I still maintain that it's not done in a way that results in him being a particularly enjoyable character, but as that will ultimately be a matter of opinion we can leave that point be.

I don't know if other posters in this thread who dislike the book are missing the point. I think you are because your statements indicate that you didn't understand key ideas from the narrative. I don't see the point in comparing Snow Crash, a comedy cyberpunk novel from 1992, to Don Quixote or Candide. Sure, those books are probably better written comedies than Snow Crash. Alternatively, they might be easier to understand because hundreds of years have gone by between their publishing and now. Far more time and energy has been spent analyzing old classics than Snow Crash. Ideas from and about books that old have had far more time to enter public consciousness. The public has had far more time to grapple with their meanings.

Have to disagree on this one chief. Aside from the fact that comparing texts is the basis of determining quality (and I don't hold any of those texts as so sacrosanct that such a comparison is unfair; I did not like Candide despite it's classic status, for example, even though I thought it was technically a good "satire") I think it's quite possible to walk into most works, satires or otherwise, and still get something from it even if you don't "get" what the author is strictly going for. I'm not giving Snowcrash a pass just because it's relatively new or hasn't had 100s of years to sauté in the public consciousness.

The reason I think that Snow Crash might be a less than universal experience is that, to me, many of the characters and concepts in the novel require some working knowledge of 1990s California. Stephenson's writing is often critical, and beyond criticizing silly and over the top cyberpunk fiction he is criticizing a number of other things in Snow Crash. Hiro, Juanita, and Da5id are all, at least in my reading, obviously meant to take the types of Silicon Valley start-up guys to their extremes. L. Bob Rife, the novel's antagonist, is essentially L. Ron Hubbard complete with his own SeaOrg. FOQNEs and burbclaves are poking fun at the type of gated HoA communities found all over Southern California and, of course, at their NIMBY residents.

Just on the above point and your previous comment...
other posters in this thread who dislike the book are missing the point
...I also find the discourse of you "you just don't like it because you don't get it" is a little trite (not specifically from you, but in general). Very few people, except insiders or those who study a text at length, will "get" everything a work is going for or influenced by, but that doesn't stop one from getting a sense of enjoyment from it from factors other than the ones that make you knowingly smirk and say "aha, I see what they're going for".

Again; characters, plotting, narrative voice, humour, etc. can all come across without "getting" 1990's California, all of which I think Snowcrash flubs in one way or another. As an example from the other side, one of my courses made me study Frankenstein in detail. I now have a really strong "working knowledge" of that text, from the cultural milieu in which it was written, the intent of the writing style, and the thematic basis (romanticism, the sublime, etc.). That does not change the fact I hate that book with a passion and think it's awful.

So although I get your point and I agree that maybe some of the subtler points are alluding me, it's hard for me to want to appreciate the clever references and parodies when Neil bricks me in the face with a 5 page monologue about neuro-linguistic programming over and over again. That's more important, in my mind, than whatever the book is referencing about 1990s California.

Additionally, I think it's probably harder to read Snow Crash today because parts of its story has entered public consciousness with limited or no context. In 1992, when the book was published, no one was going to have any preconceptions about what the Metaverse was. Nor were they going to come to the book with an understanding that Google Earth was inspired by the Earth program in the novel. Even the concept of virtual reality would have probably been science-fiction to almost all readers in 1992. Today, it's much easier to pick Snow Crash up with a series of assumptions based on how a bunch of tech guys understood the book. For the most part, I don't think those tech guys understood it. Actually, I suspect that very few of them have even read it.
I agree with this. Wow factor does matter, and that problem does come up with old sci-fi works that come up with ideas that eventually come true. I remember reading 'Stranger in a Strange Land' and completely missing that it actually predicted the waterbed. To me, it was just...a waterbed.

How should Snow Crash be changed so that it presents underage sex in a way that is not shit? Why should Stephenson have known better than to write what he did?

This and your preceding points are going to be a matter of personal preference. I'll try to explain as well I can. Basically the way I see it, the more risqué or sensitive the topic the more a writer, particularly a good one, should think carefully about how they present it.

Things like rape, pedophilia, murder, the Holocaust, etc. are sensitive topics. That absolutely, 100%, does not mean that talking about them is off limits or that such themes shouldn't be used for fear of "offence". I'm not into cancel culture. However, because those topics are sensitive and can be used for shock value, pornographically, or to fulfil base fantasy (as is the case with Wattpad writers, intentionally or not), a good writer needs to use them in a way that adds purpose and isn't there "just cause", or (and here's the kicker that I think a lot of people will disagree with me on) to merely advance the plot. For instance, the fact that underage sex or rape happens all the time all around the world doesn't mean you can and should just throw it in there for whatever reason. To do such a thing is indicative of being a hack imo.

As an example, if a work has a woman gratuitously raped and murdered for no other reason then to move the plot forward (woman in the fridge trope) I consider that tacky. I recognise that this is very much a case of personal preference or ones outlook on creative works, and it's possible for contradictions to arise. It's why I can justify truly deprave works like '120 Days of Sodom' because I think it genuinely is saying something important through its awful rape sequences, but something much more low key like in 'It' seems lowbrow to me.

That being said in the case of 'It', that's not a hill I'm prepared to die on. When I read it I thought it was funny more than anything because even though I understand the implied purpose within the parameters of your argument, you have to admit the novel really wouldn't be that detrimented by removing it. But then again, King has always had a problem when it comes to what should or shouldn't be included in his novels so I don't even think that's the most egregious thing in there.

As for Snowcrash, you're right in that it serves a plot purpose. Is the novel improved by having an elaborate setup with the dentate, YT's older man fetish, etc etc etc? My vote is no, but again, personal preference.

Anyway, I think we've spiralled down a bit too far on this point. The underage sex scene really wasn't a substantial reason why I didn't like the novel; it has plenty of other stuff I have beef with which I mentioned prior. In answer to your question as to how something like that could be written to be "not shit", maybe Demon's by Dostoyevski is an example. There, Stavrogin's sex with an underage girl leads to her suicide and a compelling reason for the characters eventual moral degeneration and suicide, which feeds into the broader themes of the novel about nihilism.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Collision

Green Tea Ice Cream
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
381
Reaction score
1,420
Awards
126
I think it's quite possible to walk into most works, satires or otherwise, and still get something from it even if you don't "get" what the author is strictly going for. I'm not giving Snowcrash a pass just because it's relatively new or hasn't had 100s of years to sauté in the public consciousness.
Sure, you're welcome to compare any works you want and walk away with any message that you personally get out of them. What I am saying is that I think it's unfair to judge the ease with which you might understand a relatively new and relatively unpopular story (e.g., Snow Crash) against the ease with which you might understand an extremely influential classic (e.g. Don Quixote). Even before you read Don Quixote, you've probably heard the name. You've probably heard someone say that someone else is "tilting at windmills". You've probably been exposed to its content in a variety of subtle ways that you don't realize. You can even buy entire books whose purpose is to explain Don Quixote to you. None of this means that you can't compare Snow Crash to Don Quixote. However, I think it's fair to say that there are reasons, beyond the text, that one might be easier to understand than the other.
...I also find the discourse of you "you just don't like it because you don't get it" is a little trite (not specifically from you, but in general).
Although it does make me a little sad that you don't enjoy a book that I enjoy, I'm not saying you don't like it because you didn't get it. I'm only saying that you didn't get it.
characters, plotting, narrative voice, humour, etc. can all come across without "getting" 1990's California, all of which I think Snowcrash flubs in one way or another.
Of course, it's not necessary to fully understand the novel at all levels to criticize the basic mechanics of the story. You've said you think the novel fails in all of these ways but you haven't described why you think this in any detail. I don't have a lot to go on regarding what you think is bad about the plot, narrative voice, or humor. Of what you have said, you've mostly walked it back.

On the one hand, you say that Hiro Protagonist is indicative of Stephenson's personal insecurities. On the other hand, you admit that the reader is given ample opportunity to see that Hiro is a satirical character. You also say that Y.T. having sex with Raven serves no real purpose in the narrative and reveals Stephenson's creepy views. However, now you accept that it does serve a purpose in the plot.

I'm kind of left wondering what you actually think here.
As an example, if a work has a woman gratuitously raped and murdered for no other reason then to move the plot forward (woman in the fridge trope) I consider that tacky. I recognise that this is very much a case of personal preference or ones outlook on creative works, and it's possible for contradictions to arise. It's why I can justify truly deprave works like '120 Days of Sodom' because I think it genuinely is saying something important through its awful rape sequences, but something much more low key like in 'It' seems lowbrow to me.

That being said in the case of 'It', that's not a hill I'm prepared to die on. When I read it I thought it was funny more than anything because even though I understand the implied purpose within the parameters of your argument, you have to admit the novel really wouldn't be that detrimented by removing it. But then again, King has always had a problem when it comes to what should or shouldn't be included in his novels so I don't even think that's the most egregious thing in there.

As for Snowcrash, you're right in that it serves a plot purpose. Is the novel improved by having an elaborate setup with the dentate, YT's older man fetish, etc etc etc? My vote is no, but again, personal preference.
While I don't think the sex scene in Snow Crash is as crucial to the message as the scene from It, I do think it's an important part of the story. You could excise it, rewrite a significant part of the book, and still potentially have an enjoyable novel with a similar message. It would be a different novel though.

Again, here, I think that if you understood Snow Crash more completely then you would probably not think that it was merely to advance the plot. Y.T. doesn't just have sex with Raven out of nowhere for contrived reasons. She's a character who has expressed sexual interest before and she's a character who is clearly willing to use sex to advance her own agenda. The section of the book leading up to this also serves to develop Raven into a more complex character rather than just a menacing giant with a nuclear bomb. The whole thing isn't included for shock value, to get Stephenson off, or to get him out of a narrative jam in a way that makes no sense. At least to me, it's completely believable that a girl like Y.T. would have sex with Raven. It's also completely believable that Raven, who rejects the, "Western, American lifestyle," would have sex with a fifteen year-old. In fact, I think Raven's willingness to have sex with Y.T. is a good demonstration of his rejection of American values and his ambivalence to the values of the Orthos. On top of that, the dentata twist is foreshadowed through almost the entire novel.

I'm unconvinced that Stephenson should have known better than to write this sequence of events or that removing it would improve the novel structurally. I feel, the sex scene does contribute to the novel's overall critique of cyberpunk media. Just generally, reckless and illicit sex is a common feature of cyberpunk fiction. To be effective, I think, Snow Crash needs to portray the same reckless sexuality that would be found in the trashy sci-fi stories it's making fun of.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards