Cecily's review of Cloud Atlas > Likes and Comments
47 likes · like
Wonderful review. I didn't try hard enough with this book, but I will.
Ian wrote: "Wonderful review. I didn't try hard enough with this book, but I will."
I've since re-read and loved it.
It was the first Mitchell I read, and was before I read Riddley Walker. I'm sure I'll get (even) more out of it this time.
I've been dancing around this one for years, but can't quite bring myself to it. I suspect it's the wrong kind of book for me, too stream of consciousness.
Loved your review.
I'm much more tempted by this than I have been in the past, thanks to some great GR reviews, including this one. Thanks, Cecily.
Thanks for your kind words, but I'm hoping to write a shiny, new, improved review when I've finished my reread.
It is a fascinating book, though the novelty of the structure means that Mitchell's skill with language is more easily overlooked than in some of his other books. That said, each section is written in its own, distinct, style, which is a linguistic achievement in its own right.
Thanks, but this is the old review. I finished rereading last night, but probably won't get time to rewrite until the weekend.
It sounds a bit daunting. If I ever finish Infinite Jest, I'll try it- with your terrific review as my guide.
Don't be daunted! Knowing the structure helps, and as long as you're prepared to trust the writer and not understand everything at first, there is much to enjoyment to be had. In some ways, the fact it's broken down into eleven sections might make it less daunting than a single narrative of the same length.
Excellent recap, Cecily. I like the added content here -- it's interesting, insightful, and from what I recall of this wonderful book, exactly right.
I just ordered a copy of Ghostwritten, which is also one of five endorsed by Pico Iyer here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...
I didn't like the start of this novel, but it looks like I'll must have to force myself through the first bit, what with reviews like this one to recommend the book. :)
Enjoyed your review; it looks like quite a bit of work is involved in reading this novel!
Think of it as a collection of long short stories: you are unlikely to enjoy them equally, and the whole book is arguably more than the sum of its parts.
Well, I suppose you don't have to, but I think it probably works best if you do, especially the first time. Mind you, now you've raised this issue, you've got me wondering...
The paradox is that you could actually link up the two separate halves of each story and not read them in the order in which they have been presented to us.
Yes, you could certainly do that, though it would sort of defeat Mitchell's point. But heck, if that's what a reader wants to do, that's fine.
Heh, maybe i should see if it works better for me to read the first story second, and the second story first... XD
I've never been big on the Robinson Crusoe or Swiss family Robinson type of setting--maybe that accounts for some of my aversion...
I wouldn't suggest this for a first reading. However, I don't understand how something as sumple as this would defeat his purpose. It is more like the rejoining of the island and the trees at the end of Dr Dolittle. Mitchell's pointd were more extensive than disjunction. They're also about connections and conjunction.
Not perhaps defeat his purpose, but his intended effect. But as I said, now it's been suggested, I'm quite tempted by the idea of doing a reread in a completely different way. As you say, there is a certain neatness, given that connectedness is one of the themes.
I always loved your perfect description of the structure of the novel in the first paragraph, although I was not concious of this as a first time reader untl halway through.
Thanks, Ian. However, I'm not sure if I came up with it, or if it was already knocking around in the back of my mind from someone/where else.
I haven't reread the whole of your review, but I infer you have now seen the film. Have you reviewed it or discussed it anywhere?
I'll be seeing it in about an hour.
I have now seen the film, and not discussed it at length on GR. Overall, I enjoyed it and think it was quite a good adaptation.
Yes, it changed things (which is fine in principle: a different medium has different requirements). The most noticeable difference is the structure: instead of a stack of open stories, it intercuts frequently and rapidly between them. That must be confusing for those who haven't read the book, but it certainly emphasizes the parallels in plot, but coupled with using the same actors in most of the stories, this emphasis is somewhat at the expense of some of the other themes.
There are various omissions and changes, but think the oddest is changing who has the comet birthmark in Sloosha's - and I have no idea why that change was made. If, when you've seen the film, you figure it out, please let me know!
I hope you enjoy the film.
Thanks, Cecily. We saw the film today and loved it. FM Sushi hadn't read the book and was impressed. I think the structure worked well. It just wouldn't have worked if the structure of the book had been adopted. It also built up to an effective climax.
It might be better to PM me about the birthmark. I didn't pick up anything unexpected.
Ian wrote: "Sorry, I think I must have liked this before you added the film content and spoilers."
And now that I have, you don't like it? ;)
Anyway, thanks for the link to the discussion of birthmarks, which I've added to the review and will read more thoroughly later.
Haha. Now I love it even more. I hadn't read the discussion closely enough to realise that you were a major competitor to it as well.
If I do, I will... but I'm not certain whether I want to. I may leave it until I see the film, probably when it comes on TV, at which time I may reread the book (possibly in the "wrong" order).
Not only have I failed in the quest Ian set, I've now been given doubts about my statement as to who had the birthmark in the first/last story, and I didn't write down where or why I thought it was him. Much as I enjoyed rereading it very recently, I'm not sure I want to do so again, so if anyone can help, it would be much appreciated!
Ian wrote: "Birthmark discussion ahead:I mentioned in my review that five out of six characters have birthmarks. My notes show the pages for the five, and Wiki mentions a BBC interview with DM where he said f..."
I thought that in the Adam's story, it was the bad guy Dr. Goode (? -- think that was his name) that had the birthmark.
I think I loaned my copy of the book out, or lost it when I moved fro CA to OH last year, because I cannot find it. But that was how I remembered it...
Because it took me until Luisa Rey to realize that the mark did not necessarily make one evil. Since DR. Goode (?) was a villain. And Frobisher a fop and a con man.
So we have a soul moving from the evil Goode through the Bodhisattva Merinym (sp?).
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Ian
(new)
Dec 21, 2011 01:40am
Wonderful review. I didn't try hard enough with this book, but I will.
reply
|
flag
*
Ian wrote: "Wonderful review. I didn't try hard enough with this book, but I will."I've since re-read and loved it.
It was the first Mitchell I read, and was before I read Riddley Walker. I'm sure I'll get (even) more out of it this time.
I've been dancing around this one for years, but can't quite bring myself to it. I suspect it's the wrong kind of book for me, too stream of consciousness.Loved your review.
I'm much more tempted by this than I have been in the past, thanks to some great GR reviews, including this one. Thanks, Cecily.
Thanks for your kind words, but I'm hoping to write a shiny, new, improved review when I've finished my reread. It is a fascinating book, though the novelty of the structure means that Mitchell's skill with language is more easily overlooked than in some of his other books. That said, each section is written in its own, distinct, style, which is a linguistic achievement in its own right.
Thanks, but this is the old review. I finished rereading last night, but probably won't get time to rewrite until the weekend.
It sounds a bit daunting. If I ever finish Infinite Jest, I'll try it- with your terrific review as my guide.
Don't be daunted! Knowing the structure helps, and as long as you're prepared to trust the writer and not understand everything at first, there is much to enjoyment to be had. In some ways, the fact it's broken down into eleven sections might make it less daunting than a single narrative of the same length.
Excellent recap, Cecily. I like the added content here -- it's interesting, insightful, and from what I recall of this wonderful book, exactly right.
I just ordered a copy of Ghostwritten, which is also one of five endorsed by Pico Iyer here:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...
I didn't like the start of this novel, but it looks like I'll must have to force myself through the first bit, what with reviews like this one to recommend the book. :)Enjoyed your review; it looks like quite a bit of work is involved in reading this novel!
Think of it as a collection of long short stories: you are unlikely to enjoy them equally, and the whole book is arguably more than the sum of its parts.
Well, I suppose you don't have to, but I think it probably works best if you do, especially the first time. Mind you, now you've raised this issue, you've got me wondering...
The paradox is that you could actually link up the two separate halves of each story and not read them in the order in which they have been presented to us.
Yes, you could certainly do that, though it would sort of defeat Mitchell's point. But heck, if that's what a reader wants to do, that's fine.
Heh, maybe i should see if it works better for me to read the first story second, and the second story first... XDI've never been big on the Robinson Crusoe or Swiss family Robinson type of setting--maybe that accounts for some of my aversion...
I wouldn't suggest this for a first reading. However, I don't understand how something as sumple as this would defeat his purpose. It is more like the rejoining of the island and the trees at the end of Dr Dolittle. Mitchell's pointd were more extensive than disjunction. They're also about connections and conjunction.
Not perhaps defeat his purpose, but his intended effect. But as I said, now it's been suggested, I'm quite tempted by the idea of doing a reread in a completely different way. As you say, there is a certain neatness, given that connectedness is one of the themes.
I always loved your perfect description of the structure of the novel in the first paragraph, although I was not concious of this as a first time reader untl halway through.
Thanks, Ian. However, I'm not sure if I came up with it, or if it was already knocking around in the back of my mind from someone/where else.
I haven't reread the whole of your review, but I infer you have now seen the film. Have you reviewed it or discussed it anywhere?I'll be seeing it in about an hour.
I have now seen the film, and not discussed it at length on GR. Overall, I enjoyed it and think it was quite a good adaptation. Yes, it changed things (which is fine in principle: a different medium has different requirements). The most noticeable difference is the structure: instead of a stack of open stories, it intercuts frequently and rapidly between them. That must be confusing for those who haven't read the book, but it certainly emphasizes the parallels in plot, but coupled with using the same actors in most of the stories, this emphasis is somewhat at the expense of some of the other themes.
There are various omissions and changes, but think the oddest is changing who has the comet birthmark in Sloosha's - and I have no idea why that change was made. If, when you've seen the film, you figure it out, please let me know!
I hope you enjoy the film.
Thanks, Cecily. We saw the film today and loved it. FM Sushi hadn't read the book and was impressed. I think the structure worked well. It just wouldn't have worked if the structure of the book had been adopted. It also built up to an effective climax.It might be better to PM me about the birthmark. I didn't pick up anything unexpected.
Ian wrote: "Sorry, I think I must have liked this before you added the film content and spoilers."And now that I have, you don't like it? ;)
Anyway, thanks for the link to the discussion of birthmarks, which I've added to the review and will read more thoroughly later.
Haha. Now I love it even more. I hadn't read the discussion closely enough to realise that you were a major competitor to it as well.
If I do, I will... but I'm not certain whether I want to. I may leave it until I see the film, probably when it comes on TV, at which time I may reread the book (possibly in the "wrong" order).
Not only have I failed in the quest Ian set, I've now been given doubts about my statement as to who had the birthmark in the first/last story, and I didn't write down where or why I thought it was him. Much as I enjoyed rereading it very recently, I'm not sure I want to do so again, so if anyone can help, it would be much appreciated!
Ian wrote: "Birthmark discussion ahead:I mentioned in my review that five out of six characters have birthmarks. My notes show the pages for the five, and Wiki mentions a BBC interview with DM where he said f..."I thought that in the Adam's story, it was the bad guy Dr. Goode (? -- think that was his name) that had the birthmark.
I think I loaned my copy of the book out, or lost it when I moved fro CA to OH last year, because I cannot find it. But that was how I remembered it...
Because it took me until Luisa Rey to realize that the mark did not necessarily make one evil. Since DR. Goode (?) was a villain. And Frobisher a fop and a con man.
So we have a soul moving from the evil Goode through the Bodhisattva Merinym (sp?).
