The Bone Clocks and the Thousand Autumns (spoilers for TAoJdZ)

[Brendan]

I'm fairly disappointed by the bit about Marinus recounting his use of "suasion" to convince the character in Thousand Autumns to kill the leader of the death cult (been a while since I've read it, I don't remember any of the character names). I felt like the strongest themes is Thousand Autumns were of duty and selflessness - the midwife abandoning her escape to save the other woman; de Zoet standing in the face of cannon fire, and abandoning his love because of his previous engagement; and as mentioned before the character who kills the leader of the death cult in such a way that it means his own death. To reveal that he wouldn't have done this without Marinus' use of "suasion" undercuts those themes, and to what end? It doesn't add anything to the Bone Clocks, other than to say that Marinus is not above sacrificing people for the greater good. It feels more like a pat on the back to readers of both books, or a secret handshake.

[Mary]

I think it may be a mistake to look too closely at certain characters across two or more books. My sense is that Mitchell had not thought up the whole horologist story when he wrote de Zoet - the Marinus in that book should not be taken so directly as the Marinus in Bone Clocks.

The vision of a realistic dystopian future, so near at hand, as shown in the last chapter of The Bone Clocks was totally chilling, so much so that the horologist story just seemed silly by comparison. Perhaps it was needed for the overall plot of Clocks, but the lengthy chapter about the battle at the headquarters just seemed ludicrous in retrospect.

[Cecily]

Mary wrote: "My sense is that Mitchell had not thought up the whole horologist story when he wrote de Zoet..."

I'm not so sure. He does plan ahead, at least loosely, a lot; it's all part of his uber-novel. He has his next five or six books in mind, and the final of the Marinus trilogy will be one of the later ones.

[Marc]

name dropping your own previous characters is arrogant and seems to be setting up a club of the 'knowing' for Mitchell fans

[Cecily]

Marc wrote: "name dropping your own previous characters is arrogant and seems to be setting up a club of the 'knowing' for Mitchell fans"

That's certainly one interpretation, and it could be seen as clever marketing as well. It certainly creates excitement in existing fans. However, as each book also makes sense in isolation, I don't think it's a big deal. In fact, mostly, I like the fact that there is a feeling of a wider universe, even if I don't spot all the links and remember all the details.