[stuxnet79]

Have to agree with you on this. Neal Stephenson is not a writer's writer by any means. But even by his standards I found the prose in Snowcrash to be plodding and amateur. I still love the book for its campy nature and for all the amazing ideas it birthed but it would have definitely benefited from a round of aggressive editing. Also the ending quite frankly was horrible, but I hear this is a general issue with Stephenson's works.

In general if you are new to Stephenson I would recommend reading Snow Crash first otherwise the transition from his other better written books will be jarring.

[jordanb]

Stevenson's endings are "pregnant endings" as in the Aeneid:

https://old.reddit.com/r/mythology/comments/196r7mn/i_just_f...

It's not a bad way to end a book in principle.

I can't actually recall how snowcrash ends, I think I was losing interest by the end.

[cwillu]

Swordfight (which is very stephenson to have in the ending) and nuclear-powered robot dogs showing extreme loyalty to the person who saved one of them from overheating.

[apercu]

I found the second part of Seven Eves to be a surreal experience. I think I might have stopped reading Stephenson after that.

[dredmorbius]

Howso?

[Ruthalas]

(Not parent)

The second half differs dramatically in tone. If you were really into the specific feeling of the first half, it is very jarring.

I found the whole thing very interesting and enjoyable, but I can imagine being excited for more content similar to the first half and being disappointed by the drastic shift in scale/tone/focus/etc.

[dredmorbius]

That's definitely true.

I saw the book as two parts:

I: We have a problem, how do we solve it?

II: What are the (very long term) consequences of how we (and possibly others) solved that problem?

From that perspective, it fits pretty well, though yes, the tones of the two parts are decidedly different.

Wouldn't mind hearing from OP on their specific concerns.

[apercu]

I just found the transition extremely abrupt and a bit jarring.