[chernevik]

The renamings and new vocabulary are clues to the nature and depth of the relationships among the book's various groups. Another crucial clue is the complete familiarity of one character's name. I can't say more without spoiling.

Really great fiction leverages the reader's powers of construction and imagination. Stephenson gives indicators of the world he's describing and leaves the reader to construct it while he gets on with other matters. If nothing else it's a better use of bandwidth. Ayn Rand lays it all out, does anyone seriously enjoy reading that? The reader's participation in construction gives them an ultimately better grasp of his idea, and a better foundation to think through the implications. Better yet, it opens the possibility of imagining worlds consistent with the plot but different from the author's imagination.

The downside is those readers who haven't time to figure it out, or miss the clues. Or maybe miss some of the background reading, which provides templates for a lot of what Stephenson's getting at. There is a lot of philosophy embedded in the book, if you aren't acquainted with it you're moving without some crucial maps.

So no, the style isn't "self-indulgent". It's a tool for communicating and working with some really complicated ideas. I'm sorry you didn't like the book, but you could just say you don't get it without assuming the author is just showing off?