Title: The Con-fusion, aka Book 2 of the Baroque Cycle, aka The Empire Strikes Back (ok, I made that up)
Author: Neal Stephenson
Verdict: The sort of thing for those who like that sort of thing. If you liked "Cryptonomicon" and "Quicksilver," you'll want to read it.
If you liked "Quicksilver," you'll like "The Con-fusion" more. If you were ambivalent about "Quicksilver," as I was, you may still like "The Con-fusion." Indeed, "The Con-fusion" made me like Q more, oddly enough. To recap, the Baroque Cycle is Neal Stephenson's latest monster, weighing in at about 1700 pages so far, with probably another 700-900 to go. It's part steam-punk, part "Gulliver's Travels," part romantic novel (in the classical sense), and part Forest Gump. We return to the same main cast of characters as in Q, Eliza, Jack and Bob Shaftoe, and Daniel Waterhouse. We also revisit and add to the rather large supporting cast of characters from Q. The geographic scope of the book is also greatly expanded; in Q, the focus stayed mainly in northern and central Europe, with a brief spell in Massachusetts. TC, on the other hand, visits Spain, the Ottoman Empire, India, Japan, Mexico, and a half dozen other places. Q covered a roughly 6 year period in the 1680s; TC picks up roughly where Q left off and brings us to the beginning of the 18th century.
Plot-wise, there isn't much obviously connecting the two books. The closing of Q sets up much of the story of TC, but there is no clear plot in either book. That isn't to say they are plotless, just that the plot seems to meander on a random walk. I expect that the third book will wrap it up into a neat package. Actually, "random walk" is also unfair, as the progression from point to point is, if not logical, certainly consequential. Stephenson weaves disparate threads into a mostly-cohesive story. The book is actually presented as two parallel, separate "books," "Juncto" and "Bonanza," with sections from the two interwoven chronologically. Again, the fictional characters mix with real characters and move through a slightly fictionalized 17th century. I am curious to research how accurate Stephenson's portrayal of history is, but I cannot investigate until after reading the third book lest I stumble upon "spoilers." Anyway, the point is that Stephenson has written an interesting, absorbing story that combines many historical elements with some fantastical ones. He even sets you up for some pretty solid punches to the gut; the 800-odd pages are filled with complicated twists and turns, but not so complicated as to be unbelievable or to confuse.
One of the key connectors with previous works by Stephenson is his focus on the science. This being the 17th century, that means a rather different thing than in "The Diamond Age" or in "Snow Crash." It isn't just a question of technological development, but also of social, political, and economic change. Stephenson is clearly fascinated with this time period, and it's easy to understand why. It was the Age of Enlightenment, when the superstitions of the medieval age were giving way to the coming industrial age. Natural philosophy and alchemy were developing into something we could legitimately call "science." At the same time, the political structures were becoming more complex than the feudal monarchies of the past, and global trading networks were being constructed as colonialism took hold. The world was becoming smaller and larger at the same time. The combined impact of these technological, political, and economic forces was unpredictable, but it was clear it would be world-changing. Seen through Stephenson's eyes, I can understand his fascination with the period; while all periods of history have their change and upheaval, in few periods were as many different, diverse, and significant trends at work, combining and recombining in complex ways.
Believability may be one of the larger hurdles a reader would have to leap. Stephenson's characters are, as I previously stated, sort of like Enlightenment-era Forest Gumps; they are involved at least peripherally in nearly every historically significant event of that period. He never makes it hard to suspend your disbelief, but if you step back from the story, it's a little shaky. This is mostly alleviated by the writing style that he uses; in many ways, his prose in these books is the most mature I have seen him write. Certain affectations caused me some annoyance in Q, but I have apparently callused my brain in just the right places. Those affectations were the most clumsy of his efforts, but they are part of a broader, more subtle effort to foster a certain point of view and attitude. Shocking, brutal things happen through the course of the book, but he keeps them at a distance through the perspective his writing creates. Think of the style of magical realism, or the language of "Gulliver's Travels," "Candide," and Gabriela Garcia Marquez, and you'll understand a little of what I mean. Stephenson is even more windily discursive in TC and Q than he was in previous works like "Cryptonomicon," but for me, at least, it works. I fully recognize that it won't work for everyone, but it's the sort of thing for those who like that sort of thing.
Hrmph. Writing a book review is hard. Oh well. Practice makes, well, practice can't make you worse, right?