The Bone Clocks
discussion
Defending David Mitchell's use of fantasy in THE BONE CLOCKS
date
newest »
newest »
Yes I do agree Mitchell dropped various clues that lead to the fifth chapter. Especially the end of the first chapter, where Esther Little and Marinus battle one of the anchorites.
Juan wrote: "Yes I do agree Mitchell dropped various clues that lead to the fifth chapter. Especially the end of the first chapter, where Esther Little and Marinus battle one of the anchorites."Oh, yeah that fight scene. The fantasy is interspersed throughout, which I think most critics tolerated, but I've noticed people say things like, "Oh, I stopped reading the book once I got to the fantasy chapter. It was just too much." Just give it a chance! You don't have to be a genre fan to appreciate how Mitchell plays off the genre.
when a book is as good as bone clocks but then throws you out of the narrative with its longest chapter being a nigh on unreadable poorly written young adult waffle horology war then no amount of "he's playing with genre" excuses it. that chapter spoils the book, it detracts from the simple joy of the first 3 sections and the curiosity of the 4th section. it stops the book in its tracks and makes getting to the end a chores whereas getting to the middle was a pleasure.in no other Mitchell book has he thrown away his audience so deliberately
Couldn't agree more Richard!
Richard wrote: "when a book is as good as bone clocks . . .Aww! Really? Too bad you didn't think so. I enjoyed the fantasy elements and the entire Marinus chapter up to and through the showdown in the Chapel. And I thought the storytelling there was quite fun.
Throughout the first part of the book, the supernatural characters come and go. Finally by the fifth chapter they take center stage, and I think that chapter had to happen the way it did. The story was just begging for that final confrontation and clash! :) But that's me. Mitchell is super talented, a literary chameleon, and he does take risks. I guess I'm just more apt to forgive excesses because I had a lot fun reading it.
did you spot Dr Marinus in The Thousand Autumns of Jakob De Zoet?I love Mitchell, i just think he let his control slip with Clocks. Cloud Atlas and De Zoet were so held together, everything was tight and in place whereas I feel Clocks was released before it was fully cooked, the horology stuff would have served better had it been less
glad you liked it though (though i have to admit you're the only person i've pseudo met who did like it)
Richard wrote: "did you spot Dr Marinus in The Thousand Autumns of Jakob De Zoet? ... ""Pseudo met"--sounds like something an Horologist would say. Most people do seem to fall hard on either hating it or loving it; no "meh" reactions to the Atemporal showdown. That in itself is something I suppose.
Mitchell is a favorite of mine, too. I loved Thousand Autumns! Did you see how the crazy, baby-eating cult in Autumns are pretty much an Anchorite cult? Mitchell has gone on record to say that Marinus will be back in a future book. This article (here) has a handy chart of appearances of Mitchell's characters across his books.
Yeah, I was trying to sound horological. I am hoping for something genuinely fresh from Mitchell again, so I wouldn't mind if he lost Marinus in that respect. Cloud Atlas was vast and had something to say, whereas Mitchell's recent books have been clever but without that something unifying them.
Have you read Goulds Book of Fish by Richard Flanagan (he just won the booker prize). If you like Cloud Atlas I think you'll enjoy it
As a fan of fantasy and Mitchell, I think the unfortunate truth is that Mitchell is just not very good at this genre. He blew me away with his sci fi in Cloud Atlas, but he's not as good at fantasy. The mystery of what is going on is drawn out for far too long, and the great reveal is long and plodding exposition. The problem isn't that it's fantasy, it's that it's not well-done fantasy.
Karine wrote: "As a fan of fantasy and Mitchell, I think the unfortunate truth is that Mitchell is just not very good at this genre..."Hmm, maybe I need to read more fantasy then. :) What would you consider well-done fantasy, Karine? (In the back of my mind, Neil Gaiman's name keeps popping up since he does a lot of urban/modern fantasy...)
OK, long and plodding exposition, I think I can see. That chapter was drawn out and little exuberant (tighter editing, maybe?) but I saw it as Mitchell cracking his knuckles and going for broke. He takes risks and I like that. It's why we read his books.
Also, I think one could say similar critical things about the Crispin chapter, too--that it was perhaps florid, overwrought, needing to be reined in--but the boos and heckles seem to be all focused on the Marinus chapter. To me that seemed a tad unfair. Just my humble opinion.
Poor Mitchell. All his works forever to be compared to Cloud Atlas.
The last chapter irked me too, no sense of ending and the need to care about characters we'd never metCrispins chapter was ok, but the end promised something the book then never delivered
Half great, half meh
Cloud Atlas was flawless. I've not tried his earlier stuff, Ghostwritten and Number9dream, they worth my time?
Genevieve, maybe I should clarify: I actually liked the Marinus chapter. In fact, I think the novel would have been considerably stronger if the novel had ended there (I strongly disliked the last chapter). What I meant is that those people who didn't like the fantasy elements of the novel might be responding to the fact that it wasn't especially well executed fantasy. My issue is mostly that he merely explained his fantasy world rather than making it come alive. To answer your question, I think fantasy is superbly done by Lev Grossman, in the Magician's Land, by Ursula LeGuin in The Wizard of Earthsea, and by Sergei Lukanenko in Night Watch. Like George R.R. Martin in the Game of Thrones books, these authors make their magical worlds real by showing people interacting with the magical elements. Describing, not giving a verbal synopsis. Mitchell is a tremendously skilled author. I enjoyed his fantasy elements, but think he didn't truly capture the genre.
I just remembered this: In the Crispin section, Crispin Hershey's agent scoffs about a book idea and tells him "a book can't be half-fantasy any more than a woman can be half-pregnant." If that doesn't show that Mitchell was mocking his own use of fantasy in The Bone Clocks I don't know what is. Le Guin, Lukanenko, George R.R. Martin, Grossman—these writers are doing fantasy with a straight face; Mitchell not so much. My original point is that he's parodying the genre.
i noticed a few self mocking moments in the crispin chapter, which initially i thought were really clever until the book continued on the down ward trajectory. a parody really needs to be amusing, otherwise it's a little pointless don't you think?
I don't think he wrote a parody of fantasy. The humor, and the Anchorites' full name was funny, was just getting into the spirit of creating fantasy. Fantasy can be fun, humorous, adventurous, and usually takes the battles between good and evil seriously. While he was clearly making a self-referential joke in the Crispin section, I think he made a very earnest attempt to make a half-fantasy book for the challenge and fun of it.
The fantasy elements, particularly the showdowns and the fact that the evil ones made sacrifices to be immortal; reminded me greatly of Stephen King's sequel to the Shining. That is meant as a compliment. Was it a perfect book? No, but I flew through it and thoroughly enjoyed it, and quibbling over details serves no purpose.
Karine wrote: "I don't think he wrote a parody of fantasy..."Well, Karine, guess we'll just have to disagree on that one.
Karine wrote: "As a fan of fantasy and Mitchell, I think the unfortunate truth is that Mitchell is just not very good at this genre."Exactly. Yet the odd thing is, that he often cites well-known fantasy books as amongst his favourites.
To much of the fifth section read more like a vocab list, rather than a novella, but I think the other problem was that that section felt more like YA. He's proven his skill at switching genres, but I think switch target ages is harder.
That said, if it was really so terrible, there wouldn't be so many vibrant discussions about it!
Richard wrote: "The last chapter irked me too, no sense of ending and the need to care about characters we'd never metCrispins chapter was ok, but the end promised something the book then never delivered
Half g..."Ghostwritten & number9dream are worth your time. Especially number9dream.
Quite frankly I didn't care about the clash of the two sects, since they were both risible mythologies and the Marinus character was really sketched thin. Holly was the only part-way sympathetic character in the whole book, except maybe Ed too. The fantasy element wasn't the flaw in the book, but merely the cherry on the top of all the flaws.
the more time goes on since i read this book the more i agree with Marcit felt like a rushed effort from mitchell, a chuck it out for sales book rather than a crafted gift of a book like cloud and de zoet
I thought a lot about the fantasy elements of the book, becouse overall I enjoyed it pretty much, in the end I came to the conclusion that it bothered me so much, not becouse it was that bad, (read lot of fantasy, it was nothing special, but it surely wasn't bad) but for the fact it came right after Crispin Hershey's chapter, which was so meta, that it was almost painful to read a so simple and almost teen fiction-like part. But it surely didn't ruin the book, from the beginning he was building for it, so it was neccessary to have a part like this, but from my point of view the placing of it just wasn't right.
I feel like I'm the only person in the world who really, really enjoyed the fight scene. The writing was spot on; the pace was perfect, and the fantasy elements all created a very mysterious atmosphere.
The book is set on Earth, or so I think - it's never mentioned. Mitchell plays on that assumption by bringing in the fantasy elements very slowly, and often very mysteriously. To further bring that mystery forward, I feel that Hershey was an absolutely essential character. He presented the life of someone who is bored of almost everything, and seemingly lives because it's just a habit he's got going: he's the antithesis of what fantasy is meant to be, and as such, presents (or represents) a real character. This characterisation contrasts heavily with the psychic fantasy that Mitchell sews into each character, and pushes the sense of awe that the kinetic and psychic powers are meant to present.
Unpopular opinion maybe, but each to their own.
I'd hate to think there was another planet which had a place called Gravesend...
Marc wrote: "I'd hate to think there was another planet which had a place called Gravesend..."I grew up near a town called Wargrave and a village called Gallowstree!
Cecily wrote: "Marc wrote: "I'd hate to think there was another planet which had a place called Gravesend..."I grew up near a town called Wargrave and a village called Gallowstree!"
I bet there was a rich history behind those names
Certainly a bloody one.The funny thing is, they were SO familiar, that I was probably well into my teens before the meaning of them occurred to me.
David Mitchell is quoted in a recent NY Times article about Kazuo Ishiguro's upcoming fantasy novel:“Fantasy plus literary fiction can achieve things that frank blank realism can’t,” said Mr. Mitchell, who added that he hoped “The Buried Giant” would help to “de-stigmatize” fantasy. “Bending the laws of what we call reality in a novel doesn’t necessarily lead to elves saying ‘Make haste! These woods will be swarming with orcs by nightfall.’ ”
http://nyti.ms/1G8BrVn
Ben wrote: "I feel like I'm the only person in the world who really, really enjoyed the fight scene. The writing was spot on; the pace was perfect, and the fantasy elements all created a very mysterious atmo..."
I totally agree with you. The fight scene is excellent, it brings the right elements in the right doses.
The real issue here is the distinction between literary and fiction books that should not exist. I am a huge fan of both fantasy novels and David Mitchell, but I rather enjoyed The Bone Clocks. At least for me it had less issues than The Thousand Autumns of Jacod de Zoet.
As for The Buried Giant, well I agree with Mitchell. It's about time for fantasy to enter the literary world, don't you think?
only if the work of fantasy has literary values
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet (other topics)
The Bone Clocks (other topics)
The Bone Clocks (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Bone Clocks (other topics)The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet (other topics)
The Bone Clocks (other topics)
The Bone Clocks (other topics)
We all know that Mitchell is a shrewdly intentional writer. Yes, that chapter in particular is over the top and full of hyperbole--but that's the point. I think critics sorely misread that chapter.
Think about it: Mitchell drops lots of clues early on that he is making good fun of various fantasy conventions. Just the complete name of the baddies alone is hilarious: "The Anchorites of the Chapel of the Dusk of the Blind Cathar of the Thomasite Order of Sidelhorn Pass." --> Come on, people. Can you read that with a straight face? Do you think Mitchell came up with that with a straight face?
I think he wants us to read that chapter and smile and remember our childhoods perhaps. In countless interviews, Mitchell has mentioned how he loved Ursula Le Guin and Tolkien as a kid. The kid in him was immersed in those classic fantasy conventions. I'm not surprised we're finally seeing a book where Mitchell gets to play with those conventions full steam. His riffs are all in good-fun. He knows he's not a genre writer, so he can't write fantasy seriously … and so the infamous fifth chapter is the result. Lucky us!
If people took it too seriously and turned up their noses at his attempts, fine, but I personally think they've missed the amazing subtlety (or should I say 'subversiveness') of the book.