I have seen the future.

The only time I've objected to a Stephenson non-ending would have been for Cryptonomicon, and I've still read it three times. The rest? They work.

From:

The only Stephenson I remember NOT flipping the page and going "Author's Note? Where's the next chapter? That wasn't an ending!" on was whatever the third System Of The World novel was.

All the rest have been hard stops. And yes, Cryptonomicon was a particularly egregious example.

I keep reading Stephenson because I really like his writing! But his books don't tend to have endings, and if you want endings, let alone want GREAT endings, you probably want a different author.

From:

I'll give it some thought, but the endings that were there in the books tended to be if not predictable (after the fact, not obviously so) but at least those that drew together sometimes forgotten elements and tied them into a neat gathering of the strands kind of bow. ("Pingers"—did not see them coming, for example; but explains the content I thought only incidental and character-building.)

Crypto did have a very specific ending, which (given the parallel characters and involvement/existence/transformation of money) probably corresponds with a very specific intentional ending in the third System book (I'm assuming you're referring to Isaac's return); that, however, could only be possible if one assumes (and there is some evidence to support this assumption) that Neil has a very, very different understanding of what gold should mean to a monetary economy than mine. I'm not claiming I'm right about mine; just that his is waay different. So confusing. To me.

I'd love to dive into an extended discussion of this stuff, but extra long work lately.

Who does great endings, in your opinion? For me, probably William Gibson. Coupland has some good ones, but real stinkers, too.

From:

I honestly don't know who "does great endings" - it's not something I particularly notice, except when they're missing.

From:

I think I spent 20 years wandering around absolutely convinced I'd read somewhere that Stevenson was working on a sequel to Cryptonomicon. As a cliff-hanger, that book's ending was perfect! (Or so Vague Recollection assures me.)

From:

I don't know about a sequel, but I wouldn't call the ending a cliffhanger. It was just a stop: Our Heroes have recovered the gold, or at least made it recoverable, beating the Other Guys in the race to steal it. The question of who gets to keep it is unresolved. The future of their plans doesn't look particularly bright of particularly dim. The book could easily go on, or it could wrap up in a few more pages, and both would make sense - but it does neither. It just stops.

From:

What you said is, I think, why I was expecting a sequel. The specific action was over, but the narrative didn't feel concluded.

From:

I would tend to not call something a cliffhanger unless it specifically stops *at an unresolved climactic tipping point*.

From:

If you say so. I haven't read the damned thing in 15 years.

From:

I wonder if he worked that in to The Baroque Cycle instead.

From:

I think there was a (really long-lived) character in Baroque Cycle who was also in Cryptonomicon, but it sure wasn't a sequel.

From:

More than one. Yes, Waterhouse was long-lived, being three at Charles I's execution at the hands of Cromwell, and living into Newton's time. Come to think of it, that would make Newton pretty long-lived as well. But what about Half Cocked Jack's brother, the soldier Robert Shaftoe? Same as the soldier in Crypto.

Those are the two that come to mind without research. I think there are others, though only as minor characters.

From:

I'd forgotten there was more than one, but that sounds about right. I'm almost tempted to go back and read all 4,000 pages ...

But maybe not. There's a lot of new stuff I'd like to have a go at too.

From:

skington.livejournal.com

Interface had an ending, although that was (a) an early novel, and (b) a collaboration.

From:

As did The Big U and The Cobweb.

From:

evcelt.livejournal.com

I agree with you about his "stopping, not ending" problem.

I was at a reading/signing where someone asked him about that, and he was basically dismissive... surprise...

From:

thornae.livejournal.com

I actually thought the ending of Zodiac was reasonably solid. It's also still one of my favourite Stephenson novels.

But yeah, the endings thing is prevalent enough that he used to have a page on his website about it (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=125200&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=10493844). (The link from that comment is now dead).

Also, Stephenson's responses to that /. interview are worth a read (http://slashdot.org/story/04/10/20/1518217/neal-stephenson-responds-with-wit-and-humor).
... *sigh*, I remember the days when /. was relevant...

From: