So the CDProjekt thread on their new game gave rise to some arguments about cyberpunk as a genre and then landed squarely on Snow Crash as a focus of controversy. It is, of course, best to blame McCullough entirely for that direction, but in his defense he probably thought he was saying something uncontroversial. Which is a nice segue. Here are the points of view I've seen expressed so far, and I will arbitrarily group them as a means of staking my position clearly: Controversial (A): Snow Crash is not purposeful parody Snow Crash was not purposeful parody to "most readers" Snow Crash is incoherent/just plain bad writing, akin to Star Wars novelizations or R.A. Salvatore. Snow Crash can be accurately assessed as a "straight" Cyberpunk work that is simply badly written Noncontroversial (B): I don't like Snow Crash for x, y, z. Neal Stephenson's writing does not appeal to me I like cyberpunk, and I don't think the digs at it in Snow Crash are worthwhile Neal Stephenson's writing evolved in ways that appeal to me more after Snow Crash This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, of course, but you can see why mixing and matching from both lists could lead to collisions where neither side is going to walk away unscathed. So let's get scathed. See, this seems entirely uncontroversial as a sentence that begins with something other than "The trouble with Snow Crash".