Obviously the craft and virtue of that kind of thing is in the relationships of the concept to other elements of the tale, both human and non-human. This I think Stephenson does very well, but I can appreciate that for someone who doesn't extend subjectivity largesse to abstractions, it can be tedious to read wikipedia-like explositions, no matter how well done. :-)
Don't get me wrong - I don't mean to say that all of Stephenson can be encompassed in those two words. Were that the case, he wouldn't have had to spend time writing books. I mean only that, if you're looking for a handy way to convey a primacy of idea over character in what an author chooses to explore, "high concept" is an adjectival phrase commonly understood to carry that meaning. Might save you some time, is all. (And, on the Internet of 2016, a dictionary is never far away...)
I've heard his critics complain about this, amd I'm not sure they realize it's what makes him popular.
I'm not sure if that was intended or not, but it seems appropriate.
I'm not super fond of the way he ends things, but the journey along the way always has fun side trails to explore.
If you're mad, then sign me up for your newsletter.
Yeah, his novels don't end, they just kind of stop. It's the same problem Porco Rosso and several They Might Be Giants songs have. This was particularly noticable in Cryptonomicon: It felt like it was building up to a climactic ending that didn't happen (which isn't to say the ending wasn't climactic, it just wasn't climactic enough to feel like a payoff to that buildup).
The closest thing I've got to a newsletter, or blog, or whatever, is the inane, insane, smart, stupid, and ridiculous comments that I post into the mass of such comments that is HN. So you may see me around.
Everybody listened to Reason.
Tron 2 wasn't so bad when you consider that it gave a lot of screen time to Olivia Wilde.
I don't want to hate it, but I don't feel like I was given a choice.
Stephenson's novels in general are like this, although Cryptonomicon for one certainly has better character development than Snow Crash: they're a disorderly jumble of whatever ideas Stephenson thought were interesting at the time, wrapped in a skin of plot, and enfleshed in the characters that surround, encounter, and explore them. Stephenson sometimes jumps the rails entirely, writing long monologues, dialogues, and digressions that barely refer to the characters or plot at all, just because he thought the ideas were neat (most of Randy and Pontifex's discussions in prison, The mathematics of Alan's bicycle chain, a good stretch of Hiro's discussions with the Librarian (although nowhere near all of them), and Hiro's adventures in Flatland on the raft (you can just feel the seeds of In The Beginning Was The Command Line, struggling to get out)), or for reasons known only to him (probably because he thought it was funny) (the TP memo, the stockings/Van Eck... thing). To some people this may be seen as a disjointed, overhyped, overcomplicated mess, but to the right sort of mind, it's an almost magical experience.
Curiously, these sorts of people tend to be heavily into computing, which is why Stephenson pervades that culture.
Or that's wrong, and I'm just completely mad. That's also a possibility.