1 I keep looking at the Sagan book and putting it back. How was it? The Stephenson volume is one I never got through. It wasn't until Cryptonomicon and later The Baroque Cycle that he really hooked me. I should go back and try again, but there are so many other books on Mount Toberead.

2 Sagan was the same as most of his work: accessible, readable, and entertaining. Some of the context of the material was dated, based upon the time it was first delivered (a series of lectures from the mid-1980s, when the Cold War still loomed). He does not throw punches at religious belief like Dawkins, but rather seems open-minded and curious. Essentially, his thesis might read: "why would someone want to believe old folk tales constrained by old superstitions when the universe as we currently understand and perceive it is so much greater and more awe-inspiring than old tribal religions?" I am not sure about the Stephenson yet. It's not as immediately engaging to me as Cryptonomicon or Snow Crash were. I slogged my way through the Baroque trilogy, so I know I can finish this one. It's supposedly set in the same universe as Snow Crash, but I'm just not getting into it that quickly.