I read this trilogy last summer. This was one of the most peculiar reading experiences in my life. Mostly because I disliked the book so much. Would most likely have liked it immensely when in my twenties.

What was wrong in the trilogy. I find it to be ultimately empty, without true substance or sustenance. It really didn't have true points and messages. Although there where themes like the essence and influence of money/currency. Despite this it was at the bottom fragmentary, hollow, without true meaning. 

Now you could say: so what if there's no deep meaning, at least there's adventure! Think Conan stories, pure escapistic fun, without much meaning. Yes, but the problem with Baroque Cycle is this: the way it was written lead to expect and almost demanded more essence and meaning and message in the book. Writing was very elaborate, intricate, complex, baroque... The characters and their intrigues where highly complex. But this complexity was never put to use, it was multiple times abandoned and kind of wasted.

Very many chapters and passages opened with a very complex and intricate writing, so it was not immediately straightforwardly made illuminous, what is actual going on. 

Also the narrative often jumped ahead chronologically, and made only short allusions what had passed before. Now, I can accept and understand this sort of chronological structure and literary device, but in this book it was ill advised I think. Because the plot and characters and situations were so complex, I as a reader anticipated that the actual situation I made an effort to understand in previous chapter would now be developed and expanded upon. But numerous times I felt that my effort put in the book went to waste. Went like this many times: Chapter opened, very intricate and complex way of explaining what's going on plus there is a jump ahead in time from the last chapter. And when this new situation becomes understood, BAM!, in the next chapter this intricate expression and time leap happen again. So it felt like all these complex creations by the author were in vain. Many build ups without deliverance.

Then you can say: well, the author was intentionally misleading. You should have learned it after first few occasions, and then just enjoyed and going with that flow.

It is also true that I probably decided the hate the book. I should have had better will and faith towards it. Like, I remember Hobbit movies. First I hated it because I thought it useless meaningless re-warming of the thing we already saw in LOTR movies. Only now with much smaller arena and stakes. But then I decided to thought: it is not often you see a fantasy movie with such visuals and scope, how why don't you just decide to immerse yourself in it and enjoy. And I enjoyed. 

I could have done something similar with Baroque Cycle but couldn't. 

Good things also abound. Book has overall very fine quality. Extremely well written. Interesting plot. Interesting facts about history. Interesting times for an adventure. Probably required lots of research. 

But then again... the research and knowledge was used in useless ways. Like a passage where Eliza and the little girl Caroline (?) escaped through Europe and it's many countries and king/duke/whatever/doms. This was just pure demonstration of knowledge without actual meaning. 

But maybe this is a point in many N. Stephenson's books. For example Snow Crash actually has long passages where there is only protagonists inner monologue about the sumerian religion and Jaynes's theory. Maybe the point is to throw around these ideas and a certain kind of readers like them. Another thing supporting this interpretation is that Stephenson's book often have kind of unsatisfactory endings. Not the kind of endings you would expect after such a complicated plot line. For example the ending of Cryptonomicon. It really doesn't deliver. And how is this possible, because clearly the author has invested a big deal in the plot. Because maybe he isn't!? Stephenson's actual point are the ideas, not the plot. He probably goes ideas first, and that's why the endings can't be so good. He's only faking with the plot, faking to readers and maybe faking to himself.

But this is great for Stephenson. He gets money from immersing in all sort of interesting and bizarre facts and objects. Then presents them to readers in his novels by tying them in with a mandatory if maybe ultimately meaningless plot. Plot is just a vehicle. Maybe bicycle. 

And then the ending with the requited love. Jack and Eliza together. Love is the answer. Love saves the world. Well maybe so in real life, but I would think it is a huge banality to make that the case in fiction. Love ending spells low quality fiction. Or maybe not! But at least after all this, you would expect something more... epic? 

But then again, maybe this just goes to show, that N.S. doesn't really make endings. 

But I admit I was also too harsh. I immersed myself with too much negativity. And then started to get a rush from being overly critical. And this whole text of mine is maybe kind of rhetorical excercise only. 

My soul was not in synchrony with this book and I'm sorry for my soul.