Neal Stephenson’s “Fall or Dodge in Hell” and Greatness

In an effort to modernize my taste in books, I began reading Fall by Neal Stephenson a while ago.

It started off as a spectacle, a technological joyride through the implications of modern-day technology. Things happen at an astounding pace, this is where, I would say, it collides with the 'intellectual thriller’ genre.

I had so much fun reading the book. The beginning is just enthralling. All the different characters, the responsibility placed upon them by their status and the world, overall it just works fantastically.

This is the first time I’ve read a modern day genre fiction novel and been so sucked in that time flies. Whenever I stop reading it feels as if I’m heaving myself out of a pool, the density of Stephensons’ thoughts cling to me as I ascend.

Despite all of these good things there’s something in it that bothers me.

It’s probably the naivety in my untrained hands, but that doesn’t change the reality of my thoughts.

It first came to me when Stephenson writes, during a speech by one of his characters, about ‘Frankenstein’s Monster.’

The section itself is well written and error-free, just as any genre fiction master. But, if my schooling hasn’t failed me, there is a fatal error here.

Frankenstein’s creature is just that. A creature. It’s the entire point of the novel, no? That understanding is step one in reflecting on it. This is not some grand idea or toothless, esoteric, concept; it is the first step. Without understanding that the entirety of the novel’s weight is lost. You can’t call it a monster without saying much more than you mean.

As Frankenstein is the epochal Science Fiction Novel it feels very strange to read a modern-day master of science fiction mischaracterize the very roots of his genre.

I am in no way saying Stephenson is a bad writer, or a fraud, or anything of that sort.

But it feels very strange to see such a blatant, in my opinion, misstep on a critical part of science fiction.

It is arguable to say, “well the character doesn’t know that so really Stephenson is just writing super well in character.”

But I don’t think actually addresses my point. Despite whatever mechanical choices are made in writing, it shouldn’t come at the cost of meaning. Especially when it comes at the cost of your own genre.

Despite this, however, the book is still good. This is a nitpick, admittedly.

As I got further in the book, however, the more stagnant it feels. Not necessarily the narrative pace, but rather the meaning.

When Dodge becomes Egdod about halfway in the book (if becomes is even the right word) Stephenson goes into excruciating detail about how he creates the world he lives in.

Perhaps I am not thrilled by this section because I’m a writer (however amateur) as well and am not enthralled by reading someone do my job, but it feels boring.

It feels like Stephenson is relying on spectacle instead of on thought. It feels weird to type this because obviously his plots are well thought out, and the narrative pacing is just the same.

But almost all of his thought feel dedicated to just that, the spectacle. The ‘cool’ factor. I sense very little emotion when he describes how an all-powerful human creates terrain. Mostly because map creators are not a super-rare thing anymore.

And while the situation is cool, therefore bearing different implications on Egdod’s actions, it still feels bare.

The more i think about that hollowness, the more of it I feel in the rest of the novel.

Dodge is awesome, Sophia is awesome, Enoch Root and El all have amazing and sophisticated personalities, but it all feels like spectacle to me. There’s something missing.

And I can’t help but feel like that this has been a culmination of my emotions regarding a more general trend in science fiction. As I try to ‘catch up’ with modern sci-fi, the less real it feels.

The interesting worlds and backdrops feel as if they’re only created because of the ‘cool’ value, instead of the emotional value. In my opinion, great worlds are only an excuse for great characters, despite how they might go hand in hand.

Science-Fiction, in the past few decades, has felt much more like a game of ‘proper nouns’ to me than an attempt to connect or explain.

Civilization A (a name with far too many vowels) fights Civilization B (a name with too few vowels) over X mcguffin to ensure the survival of the species. Stephenson will have a ‘digital’ thrown in there somewhere with an outside meta ‘real’ tossed in to make things more philosophically complicated, on the surface.

I have to admit that I am not finished with the book. I plan to, but this section of the novel feels like Stephenson slammed the breaks so hard I’m getting narrative whiplash in my spine.

I’m fairly sure I just haven’t found the right books. But in the meantime I will enjoy Fall as the intellectual thriller it is.