It might be a spoiler, but it's also a fascinating thing about this book. If it were broken in half, into two books, at the point GP refers to, they would barely even be in the same Dewey Decimal section. The two parts of this novel are incredibly different--moreso than almost any other fiction books I've read. A lot of people are unhappy about that; they get into the ambience/groove of one part and have to deal with a massive stylistic/thematic/character shift. Personally, I love it.
It's also a rare example of a book whose movie adaptation is really worth watching. I watched the movie first, and I think both the book and movie are better thanks to the other. The book makes it clear how each story exists in the next, and the movie gives a better sense of how the themes of the books tie together, despite their differences.
To anyone who reads Cloud Atlas, I strongly recommend you also watch the movie, and vice versa.
I was OK with it. At first my reaction was that Part 2 would have been better as an epilogue but I did get into it. A few things bothered me about how aspects of part 1 resolved to create the environment of part 2--probably all I can say without spoilers.
But I wasn't really bothered that some of the details hinted at in part 2 were hand-waved away as "other stories." I'm really not a fan of sequel-itis and I appreciate Stephenson doesn't go in for it. I'm fine with not every backstory or thread being fleshed out in detail.
I can't really argue with you. I did enjoy the book overall but I had trouble accepting how Part 1 ended and then it seemed there was a massive "And then a miracle happened" to set things up for the final story Stephenson apparently wanted to tell. There are at least a few different threads in how they got from part 1 to part 2 that strain credulity massively.
I think it's pretty clear that part 1 was Stephenson's "how would modern humanity really react to an apocalyptic scenario?" answer, and part 2 was his "I wanna write about theoretical orbital megastructures and epigenetics in a near-future sci-fi epic!" statement. The fact that the two parts go together as well as they do is, I think, impressive.
If you don't want spoilers don't read discussions about creative works before you experience them. Discussions about creative works must have spoilers or they aren't interesting or useful. Why would you want to restrict people from getting deep into the interesting parts of creative works that they love? I think this spoiler idea must come from the sellers of the works, not the authors or readers/watchers. This idea must die.
I enjoyed this book immensely. My only complaint about it is that I knew ahead of time that there was a split. If I had been unspoiled I would have enjoyed it more.
