What part of "Baroque" didn't you understand?

I got a copy of Quicksilver while we were in London. I had to snag it off the stocking cart in Borders since Foyle's didn't seem to have any copies forthcoming anytime soon. It's big, so big in fact that I bought the paperback traveller copy that they often have in airports and, surprisingly, quite often in Akateeminen. I read the New York Times review, the Salon review and the review in Time Out London by a reviewer who seemed to have a clue about what the word Baroque means. There is also an online Quicksilver Wiki which Stephenson himself set-up if I understand correctly. I've started reading it and it's everything I expected it to be; a wandering adventure through the Baroque age with the ancestors of the Cryptonomicon's main characters. It is more stylised to the period and less Pynchonesque than Cryptonomicon.

So, the question is, why are so many geeks who have bought this book in the wake of the popularity of the Cryptonomicon griping about it's length, its complexity, its supposed lack of plot and obtuseness? Who ever said a story had to have a single well defined plot? Quicksilver reminds me a bit of Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel in its style. It's fun trying to see just how many famous figures in our past he can cram into an entertaining history lesson cum novel. To be sure, this book isn't for everyone but it's refreshing to read something so retro and so different with a challenging vocabulary instead of the usual 8th grade selection of tired words. It's BAROQUE, GET IT?! :) Expect more of the same from the next two books in the trilogy, The Confusion [1 April 2004] and System of the World [1 September 2004]. I might balk at reading his books if he moves into the Rococo Cycle after this though. :)