> I seem to remember seeing the transcripts for the Baroque Cycle were all handwritten. Are you still handwriting your books and if so, what advantages do you think it has over using a computer?
> NealStephenson
> Mostly handwritten, yes. It's slower, and so each sentence spends longer in the buffer before it gets written out, so first draft quality is higher.
I find the combination of using emacs daily with handwriting his books bizarre. I'm sure it's that he separates the two activities, but it's funny to go "OK, I'm going to abandon the super optimized text editor I'm using to go write text for my job."
From previous interviews I have seen him say his process for writing those books was to hand write them for the first draft and then transcribe them into emacs as part of the editing process. Seems pretty sensible to me; get the thoughts on the page without an easy way to fuss over the exact prose, and then labour over the exact structure and phrasing later.
I’m myself a writer, geek and my hobby is developing free software. I do every text/blog post in Neovim, including emails with Neomutt. I do everything in console. Using the bépo layout (which is dvorak for French).
I write my books, my journal and my zettelkasten with an Azerty mechanical typewriter.
There could be many things working at once. Constraints often yield surprising benefits through innovation or forcing things to be distilled to the core important bits. In Stephenson's case, if he happens to record core info and not necessarily the full sentence he will write, which he can then finagle the right structure and prose for later, maybe that allows for better flow.
If that's indeed what he's doing, it might be like writing pseudo-code and then going back and translating it into the programming language medium of choice. The benefit of writing in a journal is that it's probably easier to do on a sunny day at the beach in the sand than it would be on a laptop or tablet. Also maybe seeing old ideas crossed out on paper helps later when looking back over it to get you into the same headspace.
Sometimes we over-optimize for aspect of a task (such as getting ideas down quick) in a way that's detrimental to the process itself when we step back and look at the whole.
Donald Knuth, Turing Award winner, author of the The Art of Computer Programming, original author of the TeX computer typesetting system, and many other impressive works. Is well known for not using email. https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html
Yup, same here. I have the best note taking and task management apps money can buy (imo) but I still use dot grid legal pads for many things. I find I use the two sets of tools very differently, despite seeming redundant on the surface.
Interesting that you find it bizarre when he clearly states his rationale. The intention is to put mechanical constraints on throughput and make it take longer.
It seems like a matter of picking the right tool for the job.
I use a notepad to take notes. It offers degrees of freedom that nothing else can compare to including an iPad with a stylus. A text editor is extremely limiting.
I wrote my game design journals by hand for a while. I didn't find the quality to be better necessarily, but it did allow for me to draw diagrams inline whenever I needed to so it was nice for that.
And I liked that I had a physical artifact afterwards, especially since the writing had a bit of visual personality while computer text does not.
But it takes forever to write by hand. I'd spend like 8+ hours a week just writing that journal, and I'd often have a cramped hand afterwards. Still did it that way for a couple years, though. And I still like referring to them from time to time.
Neal Stephenson is a product of handwritten school era. He Learned to think on paper. I am nowhere near but when I really need to learn something new or compose I reach for my notebook.
I have heard Neil Gaiman say something similar. Writing by hand is slower and you end up having to type it which pushes you toward cutting things down and streamlining the prose.
This is pretty interesting, I've noticed I find it easier to recall information if I've written it down by hand instead of typing it on a computer. I wonder if it's a similar mechanism to what Neil and Neal find with writing - it means the thing you want to express spends longer in the brain's buffer and this leads to several benefits at the cost of it being slower.
Probably goes without saying I might be talking out of my arse here but it's interesting to think about.
I remember him saying in an interview long ago that he wrote with a fountain pen.
I changed countries and career paths about 8 years ago, and for a while, over the next 3 roles, it involved large amounts of note-taking. Tens of pages of notes per day, every day, for weeks at a time.
I switched to using fountain pens too, and found it hugely increased what you call "handwriting endurance". I can write for an hour or more with a fountain pen, without pain or difficulty or cramping.
(I am in my mid-50s now, and this was in my late 40s. That means that part of the time at school we had to use fountain pens. So it was a switch back for me.)
With ballpoint pens, be they cheap and nasty or premium high-quality ones, you can press hard. This tires the hands and causes cramps.
You can't do that with a fountain pen. It damages the nib. You have to press lightly on the paper and that makes you write better. It also encourages good cursive letter forms, which evolved for a sharp nib on paper, which snags in certain directions, also less of a problem for ballpoints.
I mostly use Pilot V-Pen disposable fountain pens. They are exceptionally reliable, the whole barrel is full of ink so they last much longer than a cartridge or reservoir pen, and they don't leak even in a backpack that's treated roughly.
I recommend trying them. It's worth the effort. It works.
Ballpoints, however fancy, are only for scribbling quick notes. A proper pen results in better writing, and writing better.
i can't write more than half a page without my handwriting getting sloppy. especially because it is slow, i am tempted to write faster, and soon the result becomes unreadable.
so yes, anyone doing this must have good discipline in handwriting
Did you do your schoolwork on a computer? It's not that many years ago that a school exam could mean writing multiple half-page answers by hand, and you would also write multi-page essays by hand.
no i didn't. but i never had good handwriting. and once i got out of school i was working with computers all day, so somehow it must have gotten worse since then. i think the main problem is some kind of impatience getting something written down, which i guess i developed after getting used to writing on a computer. in other words i am simply out of practice
I love Stephenson, but I think he's deluding himself. The "buffer" is the brain. The point of writing is to get it out of the brain. Otherwise, to quote Forster: "How do I know what I think, until I see what I say."
Yeah, but for me (and I think most people, although I suspect there's a lot of diversity from person to person) what comes "out of the brain" is noticeably different when writing by hand.
Most of us can type a lot faster than we can write with a pencil. I doubt it is just the difference in speed (and I think Stephenson is simplifying here, not really saying that is the only difference), but that's part of it.
A sentence written by hand has often been drafted, considered, and revised before it actually makes it to the paper. Whereas for somebody who can type, the first sentence that hits the page is often literally the first draft of it, as originally thought.
(I still cannot imagine writing an entire novel this way myself, though...)
I'm not criticizing his technique, I'm criticizing his rationale.
If instead he'd said something like: "I just like the feel of pen to paper." Or "I've tried both pen/paper and a computer and there's something about using a computer that just doesn't work for me." that would make more sense. But this notion of a 'buffer' just doesn't.
Perhaps "deluding" was too pejorative; I'll grant that.
I'm arguing that all of that processing happens prior to you picking up a pen or taking to a keyboard to write. I'm disputing the claim that there's materially more 'thinking' happening in the second or two longer it takes one to write a sentence with a pen than with a keyboard.
If you have ever sat down and written or typed for a hour straight, it will become clear that the thinking/processing wasn't all done beforehand. Thoughts can lead to new ones and flow from one to another.
Either way, in the absence of very compelling counter evidence, I'll defer to the expert opinion of the author on how their brain works
There's evidence that when you're studying something, taking notes by hand promotes long term retention of information better than typing them out. That is a case where the act of writing itself influences the thought process, and the use of one writing instrument or another influences it differently. It's wholly reasonable to believe that the choice of writing instrument may influence the thought process in other ways, too, and Stephenson has struck upon the instrument that works best for him.
Edit: the other salient concept which comes to mind is Marshall McLuhan's idea that "the medium is the message." McLuhan definitely believed that if you go and say something over broadcast media vs e.g. printed matter, what you say comes out very differently. Both the content and interpretation are influenced by the medium. He would probably agree there is a difference between typing and handwriting, too.
It was my turn this month and I had my book club read Diamond Age. While I absolutely love the book and think it's god damn prescient, it's been the most contentious book that we've read so far. This man does not know how to write a satisfying ending. I still absolutely love his work though, despite the extremely lackluster and rushed ways he wraps things up in his books.
Yeah the Diamond Age is profoundly brilliant for about 2/3rds, but the last act just gets too weird for its own good and doesn't really resolve. Still fantastic to be in that world though.
The first chapter is very different to the rest of the book.
I hated the first chapter so much it took me about 5 tries to get through it, but then I really enjoyed the rest of the book.
> Contrary to the title of this Reddit, I don't personally make swords, because it's a specialized craft that requires much detailed knowledge of metallurgy! I have done a little hand forging of crude objects like coat hooks. I leave the actual sword making to pros.
That's a bit sad. When I read the title my first reaction was: "He clearly loves swords. I'm happy for him that he found a way to try his hand making swords." But turns out the title lied.
Also I would say he is letting the "perfect" be his enemy. Nobody ever woke up being a master sword smith. Everyone who ever made a great swords made a bunch of crappy swords first, followed by some mediocre ones before they made a great one.
> it's a specialized craft
Yes it is.
> that requires much detailed knowledge of metallurgy
Being among the best sword makers, crafting the best swords? Maybe. Some amount of practical knowledge of metallurgy helps there. I wouldn't over estimate the required knowledge though. You are not growing monocrystaline turbine blades. You are not manufacturing subsafe valves for a deep submersible rescue vessel, or a nuclear attack submarine. You are making a sword.
But in general: Just try to do a thing! I have much more respect for a backyard sword smith who made a crappy sword which looks kinda bad and can't hold and edge, than for a sword snob who has thousand excuses why they can't do a thing.
The auction for the sword inspired by Snow Crash ends in three days. I’m surprised that the current bid for the sword ($55,000) [1] exceeds the current bid of for the original manuscript ($35,000) [2].
> I’m surprised that the current bid for the sword ($55,000) [1] exceeds the current bid of for the original manuscript ($35,000) [2].
Why are you surprised? I think about it like this: imagine you bought both and you are having a party. Folks come over, they have a good time, on one shelf they see a bunch of crumpled paper with pen scribles. They will most likely ignore that shelf because it looks like junk. On the other shelf they see a badass sword, clearly a piece of art. Much more likely that they compliment you on it. Much more likely that they will remember it, much more likely that they ask you for the story of it.
I love the book, but I’m absolutely not surprised that a cool looking unique object fetches more money than one which looks like junk.
I mean, after spending $35k, you don't just throw it on a shelf (or maybe you do - I don't have that kind of money), you'd set it on a pedestal in a darkened room so the spotlights make it pop.
> or maybe you do - I don't have that kind of money
I can assure you I'm talking about hypotheticals here.
> you'd set it on a pedestal in a darkened room so the spotlights make it pop
I assumed the same. You do the same with both. But which pops more? The intricate sword (which comes with its own illuminated display system) or the crumpled papers?
Depends on the audience. I have friends who would totally lose their minds over the manuscript and ignore the sword, and I have other friends who would be the other way around.
Pardon me, but what exactly are you disagreeing with?
> The only thing interesting about this sword is who made it.
Yes. It was made by Wētā Workshop. They are a very well known prop and special effects company. That alone increases the value of the item.
Further reducing the surprise that their work is valued higher than the loose manuscript is that they have already sold art pieces for hundreds of thousands of dollar.
“We are only aware of two other items created by Weta Workshop to have come to auction: Aragorn's sword Andúril from Lord of the Rings: The Return Of The King for $437,000, and Saruman's wizard staff from The Lord Of The Rings trilogy for $125,000, both at Bonhams in 2014.”
> And the person who made it is known as an author.
Don’t know who made it at Wētā. Perhaps they are indeed authors on their own. But the sword in question was not made by Neal Stephenson.
> Plenty of actually interesting swords cost less than $55k and some have real stories and history.
Ok? So what? I’m not arguing that $55k is a good price. What I am arguing that it is not surprising that an item carefully crafted by masters of their craft to look good and be desirable sells for more than loose scribled over pages.
Thanks for pointing this out, I would have missed it. Favorite living author of mine. One answer I was looking for: his next work's going to be historical fiction. Well I'll take it.
Perfect, I can finally ask him what _really_ happens at the end of his books! /s But really, I did wish Cryptonomicon and Snow Crash had a bit more of an epilogue. I know it may not be needed but it would be more satisfying.
I recently re-read Cryptonomicon and I understood, finally, why the ending was so abrupt.
The scene was not a scene from a book, but a scene from a movie.
The whole river-of-gold thing is a striking visual, and doesn't work that well as the end of a book because in a book we just don't care about visuals, we care about characters.
In a film, it's where the titles should start scrolling up and followed by a slow fade to black. Finishing a film on a striking image, that works. A book: not so much.
I still deeply love that book, and remember fondly buying it at a train-station at about 5.30pm and then suddenly it was 5AM I was at home, and I finished the book.
Oh, really nice takeaway! That does make a lot of sense, I'll have to re-read it.
I just remember getting very close to the end and thinking I had some copy with tons of missing pages or something because there was no way to have some conclusion with the remaining pages haha.
With this in mind, it will probably make much more sense.
Fun! Whenever someone asks me which book of his I like best, the answer always seems to be, whichever one I just re-read last. (Well, except for Dodo.)
Thank heavens...I was afraid I was the only one who hated Dodo.
More than any author I love, my history with Stephenson is mixed. Couldn't get past the first chapter of Anathem (though I plan to try again this year). Have tried twice to get through the first book of the Baroque Cycle (it's just a slog...a slog full of great writing, but a slog anyway). Those are huge pieces of Stephenson that are just blanks for me. I didn't finish Dodo, either (a minor piece). But the rest? Gems.
You aren't alone -- that pretty much parallels my own opinions.
Not to take anything away from his masterpieces such as Snow Crash and The Diamond Age, which I adore beyond measure, but my favorite book is still The Big U. It's simpler than his later works, and he was still learning his craft when he wrote it, but it brings me such undiluted joy that none of that matters.
Anathem and The Baroque Cycle both took me two tries as well. The second half of Anathem is an action-adventure book mix of Zodiac and Seveneves, so it gets really engaging. The Baroque Cycle eventually sucked me in because I felt like I really got to know the characters, but it never gets fast-paced.
> Thank heavens...I was afraid I was the only one who hated Dodo.
Couldn't finish it.
I've read everything else he's written and between liked it and _loved_ it... including the nonfiction. Only RAFOD was unfinishable, and _Fall ODIH_ I finished but didn't find worth it.
> DavidGan1x
> I seem to remember seeing the transcripts for the Baroque Cycle were all handwritten. Are you still handwriting your books and if so, what advantages do you think it has over using a computer?
> NealStephenson
> Mostly handwritten, yes. It's slower, and so each sentence spends longer in the buffer before it gets written out, so first draft quality is higher.