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.