This article makes too big a deal of the connection between Neal Stephenson and the Rationalists. I don't think he's any more of a Rationalist than, say, Andy Weir. Stephenson writes science...
This article makes too big a deal of the connection between Neal Stephenson and the Rationalists. I don't think he's any more of a Rationalist than, say, Andy Weir. Stephenson writes science fiction techno-thrillers in which dramatic events happen. There are lots of ways his plots are unrealistic, but to make them vaguely plausible, there are certain requirements.
One of the necessities of a techno-thriller is that you need powerful people who are willing to act. Sometimes they're a supervillain, sometimes not. In this case, someone with a lot of money and not much respect for laws has to be there to get the plot rolling, because it's no fun to write a novel about a climate change device that doesn't actually get built. It's kind of like Checkov's gun. In this case, a really big gun. Having a billionaire do it seems like a rather convenient plot device?
The eccentric Texan billionaire doesn't come across as the hero of the story. In the story, he's not as much of an idiot as he seems, but he's in over his head and things sometimes go badly wrong.
But it's often the case that science fiction and fantasy centers around powerful people. Power trips are fun. Being powerless tends to be less entertaining. You need some vaguely plausible way that they gained their power, though. Often the hero starts from humble beginnings, but they usually end up pretty powerful soon enough. Sometimes they come from humble beginnings but are also secretly royalty, so you get the best of both worlds!
Stephenson doesn't go that far. Some of the characters are powerful. Others are poor, although strangely resourceful.
It's true that the US government in the novel is strangely weak. There seems to have been some kind of gradual collapse that happened off camera. Maybe in the novel, Trump got a second term or something? I would bet against the US government collapsing anytime soon but it's certainly plausible enough for a techno-thriller.
I don't think this has anything to do with a Grey Tribe or libertarian ideals. Setting your story after government collapse is commonplace in science fiction, usually as part of the setup for a dystopia. (It's also a necessity of the plot; after all, the gun has to go off.)
You may be right that the connection with current rationalism is tenuous. At the same time, the author is pointing out something worthwhile--that the plot pits billionaire ingenuity against...
You may be right that the connection with current rationalism is tenuous. At the same time, the author is pointing out something worthwhile--that the plot pits billionaire ingenuity against wokeist cancel-culture. Sure, it works as a plot device...and it also works as the launch point for a critical essay. My read of the article is essentially that Stephenson relies in his novel on a strawperson version of "the left" existing, where really that version is a tired myth clung to by non-leftists, in part because it behooves non-progressive liberals to perpetuate it.
Another thing that came to mind for me is that unlike many sci-fi authors who use post-collapse dystopia as a cautionary tale against technocracy (I'll just say Terminator 2, because why not?), Stephenson's approach is to suggest that a better technocracy is the way out. It's not clearly right or wrong, but it is a political stance (whether or not he himself holds that position), and it's certainly one that appeals to the Grey Tribe types...or the LessWrong rationalists at least.
I don't think wokism is a major villain in Termination Shock, though? I remember there were some things about wokism, but it didn't seem very prominent, more a way of showing that Stephenson keeps...
I don't think wokism is a major villain in Termination Shock, though? I remember there were some things about wokism, but it didn't seem very prominent, more a way of showing that Stephenson keeps up with current events and incorporates them into his books where appropriate? (Similarly, COVID shows up but he doesn't do that much with it.) Maybe I'm not remembering something.
I thought colonialism and anti-colonialism were a bigger theme than wokism, with characters personifying both these stances. The colonialists are treated sympathetically but seem older and out of touch, though.
But one bias of techno-thrillers is probably that collective grass-roots political action isn't treated as a significant source of power. In Termination Shock public opinion matters, but the public is bring manipulated by shadowy forces. One of the characters is a very cynical PR professional and there is a dramatic incident in which deep fakes are used to manipulate public opinion. (This it has in common with Fall; or Dodge in Hell.)
A prominent character is "cancelled" but this isn't by wokism, it's by shadowy PR forces. I think it was implied that it was the Chinese?
I think the way he writes about the US could sometimes be considered a cautionary tale, although this is more vivid in Fall, where much of rural America has been lost to conservative religious fanatics. (It also has a very dramatic version of "fake news.") His books are rarely just about living in a dystopia, though. The collapse is dramatic but partial.
Greens being an opposing force seems structural - who do you think would oppose climate engineering? They are mostly off-camera though, I think?
There are very conservative and very liberal characters treated sympathetically. The liberal characters tend to be young - there is a sort of "kids these days" feel to it, where they are competent and participating in events in a positive way, but no match for the large powers in the world. (The falconers are one example of this.)
Another bias is basically "competence porn." Everyone character is very competent at something. Military competence interests Stephenson and is structurally useful in a novel where there are big fights, but there are others.
This is actually in Fall; or, Dodge in Hell, or at least is also in that. I didn't see mention of it in Reamde's Wikipedia page, and I'm in the position of having read Fall but not having read Reamde.
I think the way he writes about the US could sometimes be considered a cautionary tale, although this is more vivid in Reamde, where much of rural America has been lost to conservative religious fanatics. (It also has a very dramatic version of "fake news.")
This is actually in Fall; or, Dodge in Hell, or at least is also in that. I didn't see mention of it in Reamde's Wikipedia page, and I'm in the position of having read Fall but not having read Reamde.
This article makes too big a deal of the connection between Neal Stephenson and the Rationalists. I don't think he's any more of a Rationalist than, say, Andy Weir. Stephenson writes science fiction techno-thrillers in which dramatic events happen. There are lots of ways his plots are unrealistic, but to make them vaguely plausible, there are certain requirements.
One of the necessities of a techno-thriller is that you need powerful people who are willing to act. Sometimes they're a supervillain, sometimes not. In this case, someone with a lot of money and not much respect for laws has to be there to get the plot rolling, because it's no fun to write a novel about a climate change device that doesn't actually get built. It's kind of like Checkov's gun. In this case, a really big gun. Having a billionaire do it seems like a rather convenient plot device?
The eccentric Texan billionaire doesn't come across as the hero of the story. In the story, he's not as much of an idiot as he seems, but he's in over his head and things sometimes go badly wrong.
But it's often the case that science fiction and fantasy centers around powerful people. Power trips are fun. Being powerless tends to be less entertaining. You need some vaguely plausible way that they gained their power, though. Often the hero starts from humble beginnings, but they usually end up pretty powerful soon enough. Sometimes they come from humble beginnings but are also secretly royalty, so you get the best of both worlds!
Stephenson doesn't go that far. Some of the characters are powerful. Others are poor, although strangely resourceful.
It's true that the US government in the novel is strangely weak. There seems to have been some kind of gradual collapse that happened off camera. Maybe in the novel, Trump got a second term or something? I would bet against the US government collapsing anytime soon but it's certainly plausible enough for a techno-thriller.
I don't think this has anything to do with a Grey Tribe or libertarian ideals. Setting your story after government collapse is commonplace in science fiction, usually as part of the setup for a dystopia. (It's also a necessity of the plot; after all, the gun has to go off.)
You may be right that the connection with current rationalism is tenuous. At the same time, the author is pointing out something worthwhile--that the plot pits billionaire ingenuity against wokeist cancel-culture. Sure, it works as a plot device...and it also works as the launch point for a critical essay. My read of the article is essentially that Stephenson relies in his novel on a strawperson version of "the left" existing, where really that version is a tired myth clung to by non-leftists, in part because it behooves non-progressive liberals to perpetuate it.
Another thing that came to mind for me is that unlike many sci-fi authors who use post-collapse dystopia as a cautionary tale against technocracy (I'll just say Terminator 2, because why not?), Stephenson's approach is to suggest that a better technocracy is the way out. It's not clearly right or wrong, but it is a political stance (whether or not he himself holds that position), and it's certainly one that appeals to the Grey Tribe types...or the LessWrong rationalists at least.
I don't think wokism is a major villain in Termination Shock, though? I remember there were some things about wokism, but it didn't seem very prominent, more a way of showing that Stephenson keeps up with current events and incorporates them into his books where appropriate? (Similarly, COVID shows up but he doesn't do that much with it.) Maybe I'm not remembering something.
I thought colonialism and anti-colonialism were a bigger theme than wokism, with characters personifying both these stances. The colonialists are treated sympathetically but seem older and out of touch, though.
But one bias of techno-thrillers is probably that collective grass-roots political action isn't treated as a significant source of power. In Termination Shock public opinion matters, but the public is bring manipulated by shadowy forces. One of the characters is a very cynical PR professional and there is a dramatic incident in which deep fakes are used to manipulate public opinion. (This it has in common with Fall; or Dodge in Hell.)
A prominent character is "cancelled" but this isn't by wokism, it's by shadowy PR forces. I think it was implied that it was the Chinese?
I think the way he writes about the US could sometimes be considered a cautionary tale, although this is more vivid in Fall, where much of rural America has been lost to conservative religious fanatics. (It also has a very dramatic version of "fake news.") His books are rarely just about living in a dystopia, though. The collapse is dramatic but partial.
Greens being an opposing force seems structural - who do you think would oppose climate engineering? They are mostly off-camera though, I think?
There are very conservative and very liberal characters treated sympathetically. The liberal characters tend to be young - there is a sort of "kids these days" feel to it, where they are competent and participating in events in a positive way, but no match for the large powers in the world. (The falconers are one example of this.)
Another bias is basically "competence porn." Everyone character is very competent at something. Military competence interests Stephenson and is structurally useful in a novel where there are big fights, but there are others.
This is actually in Fall; or, Dodge in Hell, or at least is also in that. I didn't see mention of it in Reamde's Wikipedia page, and I'm in the position of having read Fall but not having read Reamde.
You're correct. Ameristan isn't touched on in Reamde, but is in Fall.
Oops! Yeah I got them mixed up. Fall is the sequel to Reamde. (Fixed.)