It reads as almost a picaresque satire, like Candide. It's full of good jokes like "I'm sure he'll listen to Reason" and "the most important technology man has created is the three ring binder", and uses the adventure structure to make commentary about his particular dystopia.
Buuuuut, its also laced with random boring history lessons on ancient mesopotamia. There are just too many locations, characters and digressions to move the plot up coherently and keep in your head, and the flipping between protagonists is hard to follow and remember. Wikipedia's plot summary doesn't even mention several key points, like a nuclear fission powered guard dog nearly going critical. Some the jokes are dated references to the 1980's (Godfather's pizza, Moonies).
There is a good book in there, but wait for the miniseries in 2050.
So now I wonder if snow crash was really any different or if it was me and the mood I was in.
And don't get me wrong, the works of his I've read are set in imaginative worlds, amazing yet somehow just a hyperbolic version of today. It's just that the rejected Wikipedia articles that come along don't much serve the world building or narrative.
A piece of art can simply not be your thing, but still be "good". That people whose taste you respect think something is great is reason to give it a shot -- but if you're not into it, you're not into it.
That's not wrong at all. It's just differing tastes. It doesn't mean that the work isn't good, nor does it mean that your taste is flawed.
I’m not a literature expert and I know people generally like the book. But I got maybe half way through the book and was wondering, “okay so when is the plot going to advance? Is there even a plot? Just feels like stuff is happening but I’m not sure why I should care.”
I spent too long thinking that it must be a good book so maybe I just have to give it a few more chapters.