21st Century Literature discussion
2015 Book Discussions
>
The Bone Clocks - Part III: The Wedding Bash (February 2015)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Violet
(new)
Feb 04, 2015 03:46AM
Okay, I'm lagging behind a bit (reading Nicole Krauss' Man Walks into a Room (another compelling read) as well as Bone Clocks but I know how frustrating it is to be brimming with observations and have nowhere to post them so this is the thread for the third part The Bone Clocks: The Wedding Bash. And huge thanks to everyone as it's already been a hugely stimulating and fruitful discussion.
reply
|
flag
Finished this last night and a good way into part four now. So now to remember what it was that struck me so at the beginning of 3 ....I liked this part a lot - Ed's flashbacks to Iraq are quite compelling and I'm wondering how that reality fits into the story. I was also glad to get the view of Holly's elderly aunt on the "Script" and her insight on Jacko's metamorphasus (the word seems to fit and wonder if there is some connection to Hugo's). Freaky was Constantin checking Holly and Ed's daughter's forehead.
And finally, for what its worth, a pop song that is a favorite -- Lady in Red (is dancing with me, cheek to cheek)! And echoing Ben from the prior thread -- what's with the pop music in this book?
Mod
I had a somewhat similar reaction to Linda in feeling that the whole interjection of the Iraq war and Ed's flashbacks felt oddly placed (perhaps less so in relation to the whole book, but maybe not). Still, I found them fascinating.
By the time I got to this part in the book I realized this book was very similar to Cloud Atlas in the way each chapter introduces a new character. Now of course Ed is not new, we've met him in part one, but I have to admit introducing new characters, back story etc. dismayed me because it's too much like short stories which I find jarring- being thrust into a story and just when you're finding your way and the rhythm and becoming invested in the characters, it ends. The characters and stories of Cloud Atlas seemed too tenuously linked for me to really feel like I was reading a novel. At least The Bone Clocks has a more underlying story going on although we're still, at this point, just getting bits and pieces and brief glimpses into the other world. The whole Iraq war scenes just didn't work for me. Nor does the character Ed. It's not until Part 4 (which I'll say nothing about) that I really started to enjoy this book. We'll see where it goes.
Mod
I'm almost through this section, and not really a fan. Far too much didacticism for my taste. Occasionally Mitchell lapses into having a character stand there and explain things to people, which he does an awful lot here. I hate it when novels start sounding like political pamphlets. And I don't really find adult Ed all that interesting.
I found adult Ed actively annoying. As a parent I found his attitude about career vs his parental responsibilities just self-indulgent. When my kids were little, I cut out traveling for work entirely. Admittedly, it wasn't as much a part of my career as his. But still.
I haven't read any of these posts yet cos I don't want to know what happens until I read it but the thread for part four is up for those who are racing through - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
I don't personally approve of Ed's choices, but it's clear by now that Mitchell is challenging us to look harder. There's the familiar brotherly love between soldiers who would die for each other, and there's a clear parallel with the media people drawn to it -- including the audience.During this era, we get the first "televised war," with news commentators and opinionators. It's true-to-life, then, to spatter this section with such talk.
Message received: I, for one, ignore political chit-chat and consistently denigrate the participants. Mitchell has reminded me to be more compassionate.
By now I'm seeing this whole book as a grand romance: life is love and love is life. (And so is death.)
He’s really contrasting the realism with the fantasy now, isn’t he? In case we had any doubt that this is a novel grounded in the real world he brings in one of the most pivotal historical events of recent times. And in the form of reportage – or factual analysis. And of course a place where mortality could not be ignored for long by anyone there and even us while watching footage.
Lacewing wrote: "I don't personally approve of Ed's choices, but it's clear by now that Mitchell is challenging us to look harder. There's the familiar brotherly love between soldiers who would die for each other, ..."For me, Vietnam was the first televised war, but I guess it was Iraq for Mitchell. And, Vietnam was at a time of one TV per family and it was in the living room - the first time War invaded the living room in all its immediacy and horror.
I was protected from the evening news during that time, Linda, assigned to cook dinner while it was on. It's been years since I even owned a TV. Does Mitchell's handling of war scenes seem reasonable as well as right for the story?
Lacewing wrote: "I was protected from the evening news during that time, Linda, assigned to cook dinner while it was on. It's been years since I even owned a TV. Does Mitchell's handling of war scenes seem reaso..."
I thought the war scenes were realistic and liked them but I'm not yet sure why they are there. However, I think it has something to do with the war in the fantasy war that is spilling over to the real world.
Or the inevitable collateral damage of war? I don't know, I'm not finished with the book yet!
Sandra wrote: "Or the inevitable collateral damage of war? I don't know, I'm not finished with the book yet!"Me neither but things are starting to connect a bit!
Violet wrote: "He’s really contrasting the realism with the fantasy now, isn’t he? In case we had any doubt that this is a novel grounded in the real world he brings in one of the most pivotal historical events o..."Good point! The truly bloody stuff hits hard. Without it, this novel would lack an essential aspect of human truth, of biological truth.
Sandra wrote: "I have to admit introducing new characters, back story etc. dismayed me because it's too much like short stories which I find jarring- being thrust into a story and just when you're finding your way and the rhythm and becoming invested in the characters, it ends."Mitchell has recently wondered whether he can really only write novellas, rather than novels. For me, the ongoing issue with his writing is how the disparate parts connect or gel. Does he do/achieve more than mere juxtaposition? Do the parts benefit from their juxtaposition? Can we tell before the completion of the entire uber-novel? Will I/we still be alive then?
I’ve got about another 20 pages of this part to read but as yet I’m a bit baffled by this section. Mitchell clearly enjoyed writing the Iraq passages – he’s great at creating high tension moments. Almost a waste that he posited one or two of these passages in the past tense so we know beforehand that no real harm will come to Ed. He sacrificed a lot of thrilling reader angst by doing so. Okay, Ed is being attacked for his reluctance to submit to domesticity and the attacks grow steadily more decisive. (Worth remembering there’s always ego involved in journalism unlike, say, aid working which has a more genuinely humanitarian and altruistic foundation.) Brendan’s attack is ego-based and irritating and easy to ignore, Holly’s attack has more kudos but seems to him unfair, his daughter’s attack is searing rudimentary emotional blackmail and so hard to ignore, Eilish’s attack in the form of the invitation, is very subtle, it’s mystical but probably the most effective of all in that it reaches deep down into Ed’s psyche. It’s like Ed is being broken up here into his various components: manhood, ego, heart, soul. The fortune teller was a nice touch – bringing in the mystical in its most crass form and paving the way for the truly mystical in the form of Eilish. One of the ghost bridges between the real and the fantasy.
But this wedding? What’s that all about? As Jim has remarked about other elements of this book, once again there’s something of the soap opera about the depiction of the wedding. It’s almost wilfully clichéd. (More shoddy music for Ben to sink his teeth into!) I enjoyed the reverend’s speech. But isn’t there a lot of idle chit-chat? And, like Sandra says, another cluster of characters who will probably disappear once this part ends. I guess the wedding is like the divide between two territories, past/future, ego/heart - a threshold that symbolically might force Ed to choose which path to take.
Out of interest who are you siding with in the Holly/Ed dispute?
Violet, all that is really, really interesting. I won't try to dig into all of it, but there were two things I got out of my latest reading.I was thinking the past tense sections were meant to be his flashbacks.
I mentioned before the brotherly love of soldiers. Jacko's disappearance has been an ongoing trauma for the Sykes family. Now I must allow that Ed's feelings for his compatriots in Iraq is to be respected as being equivalent. "Under the skin, we are all brothers," or however that goes. I think Ed would understand if Holly had to leave home to protect Jacko.
I think Holly, despite her prickly reactionary persona, is more spiritually evolved than Ed. I think it was you, Lacewing who originally drew attention to Mitchell’s deep prevailing interest in Buddhism and certainly one of the recurring tasks for characters in Mitchell’s fiction is overcoming ego. I get the sense that there’s a lot of ego involved in Ed’s attachment to his journalism. He likes the praise. I never really got the feeling it was much about caring for his fellow man. That seemed more like a rational construction he placed over his motives. Holly’s work, on the other hand, does seem to have empathy and compassion as its impetus. So for me, in Buddhist terms, Ed is the child here and Holly the adult. Except perhaps Mitchell has done a clever job in inverting them superficially so we tend to sympathise more with Ed's perspective when we should be behind Holly.
The Zen of ego goes beyond pride, shame, humility into No Self, when subject and object fail to be differentiated. Concurrently, self-regard is maintained; we are to attend equally to trees, water, the neighbor, rocks, oneself, clouds . . . A monk or nun would be chastised if they tried to escape from their uniqueness. A master with a gift for language would be expected to use that gift, but of course not for personal gain in status and wealth.
Mod
I think the wedding served several functions. One was that it was a contrast between Holly and Ed's less conventional relationship with a maybe more 'committed' one, as well as contrasting the mundane celebrations of normal life with Ed's experiences in Iraq.
Exposition wise, we had a bunch of people from Holly's family, especially Eilísh as mentioned, going more into the mystery of Jacko. It also gave us some ignorant tossers for Ed to explain the war too, which was a little too much of an Aaron Sorkin-like straw man argument for my tastes.
And of course and obviously, there was also the disappearance of Aoife which afforded Ed the opportunity to examine his motives and responsibilities more honestly and Holly the opportunity to show her latent psychic abilities. I'm wondering if there was an intended reference to the Wedding at Cana here, where Jesus first exposes his supernatural talents and saves the wedding from disaster.
Probably not a great idea to bring up politics but I’m curious what the Americans among you made of Mitchell’s observations about the war in Iraq. Whitney’s already raised a polite objection above. And I agree. Seemed to me Mitchell could be accused of being wilfully myopically patriotic in his defence of our (the British) decision to go into that war, as if it was unlike us while at the same time implying it was to be expected of Americans. I’d have been irritated by that were I American. I’d say, in the present age, it isn’t so much nations as very powerful individuals who make the big political decisions and you could say these individuals belong to a kind of international freemasonry rather than any individual nation. We’re talking the boards of global corporations. Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist it’s indisputable that an elite of individuals made colossal amounts of money from 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continue to benefit on a huge financial scale from the Jihadist phenomenon. Over here Tony Blair became the scapegoat for our anger and moral shame over the illegality of the war in Iraq. His reputation, which otherwise would have probably seen him go down as the most innovative and dynamic prime minister of the post war decades, has been conclusively tarnished if not torn to shreds. In other words we’ve exorcised all our guilt into one individual. Whereas Mitchell, going by the pantomime villain depiction of the American military in the form of Major Hackensack, is suggesting Americans more generally, if not the entire nation, were cheerleading the war. After all, Mitchell could easily have given that role to a British soldier, unless, of course, it was his intention to find Americans more culpable.
No politics from me but I enjoyed the Big Mac pun.
I think I was expecting this chapter to rocket off into the supernatural. Never happened. The fantasy was subtle, intriguing, verging on credible.
I can only speak from my own personal feelings about the war in Iraq. I think in the very beginning, right after 9-11 most of us were pretty guns-ho for the war. We were blindsided and just ...the most visceral reaction when your are hit is to want to hit back. So yeah, in the beginning we were pretty supportive of the troops and the whole operation. Then we quickly started to feel manipulated and "had" when no weapons of mass destruction were found and we realized that companies like Haliburton were raking in the billions. We stated to question the whole mindset of the way the US pushes it's weight around the world and how certain powerful individuals and corporations became much stronger and in fact were running the whole show. I admit I am somewhat (mostly, ha) ignorant of the whole thing, that is STILL going on, but I would say I'm just a typical American with typical knowledge of the war. In other words, I agree with Mitchell's take. But like Ben says, the US was just a figure head for much more powerful background players.
Just my feelings. Please don't flame me!
When I was trying to comprehend the implications of Charlie Hebdo, I started to think in terms of a divine war between supernatural beings/beliefs with humans (bone clocks) as their foot soldiers. Then it dawned on me that this seemed to be the concept of TBC.
Or the juxtaposition of the macro and the micro wars.
Yes!And returning to Ben's comments, the Gods apparently need bankers and munitions suppliers and Halliburtons, so there will always be bone clocks who benefit from macro and micro wars.
Mod
Thanks Sandra and Whitney for the US feedback. I felt, on the whole, Mitchell did a good job of depicting Iraq. He got across the initial general feeling that Sandra talks of when we all believed what we were told because what choice do we have unless we're psychic? And he got across the appearance of the dubious sinister motives that soon surfaced. Agree Whitney about Mitchell creating a character merely to pick apart his untruths which reminded me a bit of a character explaining in soundbites the science in a bad sci-fi film. And Ian, I'd say the bankers, munition suppliers need the terrorists as if were they not to exist they'd have to invent them. Again the juxtaposition between macro and micro.
I enjoyed the first part, and really liked Hugo’s racy ride through the second. But I felt the book went a bit flat at the start of this part. The sequences in Iraq (and the discussion on Iraq at the wedding) for me went over events and arguments that I’ve heard many times before. The mystical references were better but the section really took off for me when Aoife disappeared and Ed’s panic suddenly seemed so genuine – he was all over the place.I was surprised to find the hotel incident only happened a week before the wedding – I had imagined it was further back in time. At that rate, Ed should have been in some shock no matter how hardened a reporter he was. I didn’t get that impression at all. Yet he was defending his life as a war correspondent, and drawn back to it like a magnet by some crazy logic. (Just the way that the warring parties were drawn into it and couldn’t let go without proper consideration of the final outcome). Anyway, his magazine should be insisting on a long spell of leave. It takes his daughter’s disappearance plus the mystic elements to shock him back to ‘reality’ – to help him see things clearly.
Do you think Ed appeared to be in any state of shock, prior to Aoife's disappearance? I thought he just came across as a reporter of events.
I'm pretty much in agreement with all of this, Jim. I enjoyed the action scenes in Iraq but not so much the discussions about Iraq, mostly for the reasons Whitney mentioned. I too assumed the hotel blast was a more distant memory. Hard to believe he didn't tell Holly about this, especially when they were in the midst of a full blown, relationship threatening row. Aoife's disappearance though was a masterstroke in realigning Ed's priorities. As i said somewhere above it was like he overcame ego for the first time in his life and I sense, maybe wrongly, overcoming ego has some relevance in the anchorite/horologist divide.
Right at the beginning of the next part Mitchell foreshadows criticism of his own book with the quote, directed at Crispin Hershey's fictional novel, "the fantasy sub-plot clashes so violently with the book's State of the World pretensions." As the Iraq section is, so far, the most concentrated attempt to address "the state of the world" it’d be interesting to know how well we feel Mitchell is succeeding in incorporating into this novel a creative historical account of our times, which does seem to be one of his aims, albeit in his incorrigibly playful fashion. Certainly it was courageous of him to take us directly to the front line – though Holly seems to imply these moments of history are ultimately less important, on a personal level, than domestic life. A macro micro clash as Sandra put it. Ed’s emotions over the disappearance of his daughter, much more engulfing and soul destroying than anything he experiences in Iraq, seem to bear Holly’s wisdom out.You could say Ed lives on sensation until sensation begins to turn round and bite him, first with the hotel blast and then the disappearance of his daughter. I’m also surprised by how low key the fantasy is. It was pretty full on in the first part and my expectation was it would have a growing claim on the narrative. I’ve deliberately kept myself ignorant of the novel’s plot – not read any reviews or interviews – but so far the fantasy element could be described as a few telling but very subtle strokes of paint on a pretty large canvas, like a mythological animal painted bewitchingly into the background of a vast landscape. It’s there and it continues to mesmerise but it doesn’t really diminish the haunting realism of the painting.
Ben wrote: "Probably not a great idea to bring up politics but I’m curious what the Americans among you made of Mitchell’s observations about the war in Iraq. Whitney’s already raised a polite objection above...."As an American, I have not problem with Mitchell's depiction of the war, except that he did not mention the real villain - the person I consider the "evil" one - and it was not Bush.
I don't necessarily think Mitchell credits the British with less blame than the US; his character does, that's as far as I see it. It's in tune with Ed's character for him to rationalise his own position. If you apply what he says to the UK (as supporters of the US) as well, it's pretty hard to argue with by this point. It's hard to imagine a less-justified, less effective (in it's *stated* aims) war. But yeah, I'm with Whitney on the how.In fact, I'm generally kinda so-so about the whole thing so far. It's mildly diverting but not engaging. There's something about the writing that makes me (almost) always aware that I'm reading, never fully immersed, never fully translating words on the page into living, breathing people that I hugely care about. I'm wondering if it's that I'm given too much, not left with much to ponder on, unexplained. It's hard to put my finger on.
Oddly, I think I cared most about Hugo, by this point. There seemed some mystery, some depth, to him, some enigma left to me as the reader to puzzle out.
Like I say, I'm not hating it, but I was expecting more, somehow. So far.
I'm with you as regards Hugo, Terry. For me he's been the most compelling character so far - the one I was most sorry to see go. But I'm still only half way through.
Ben wrote: "Probably not a great idea to bring up politics but I’m curious what the Americans among you made of Mitchell’s observations about the war in Iraq. Whitney’s already raised a polite objection above...."I didn't find the observations too far off from how I remembered it. But, like the first section, I give authors a lot of leeway regarding historical accuracy.
While I liked Ed, and it was interesting to see a third representation of Holly (her own, then Hugo, now Ed), I found the Iraq story kind of boring. Also, it seemed like the wedding and the missing Aoife situation were disjointed, as if they were falsely inflated and deflated, if that makes any sense. Again, I had some trouble remembering who Constantin was at first and if the fortuneteller was supposed to be someone from earlier that I forgot? So, still the problem is keeping up with the main flow of the plot while so many details keep us treading water.
I miss Hugo too...This is starting to fall into place for me now - I think by the third section the "pattern" of the book is beginning to become clear. The politics didn't really bother me, but I can see how others might not have the same view. It did seem a little flat after the section before though.
Mod
For me, he seems a bit stuck with his life and isn't sure how to move forward. He knows what he's supposed to do, and it's clear he cares for Holly and Aoife, but he can't bring himself to leave the path he's created for himself. I know it's easy to dismiss Ed for being selfish, but I'd like to give him more credit, especially since we don't know that much about his life. All we've known about him previously is through his attachment to Holly. We know he fell for her when they were 15, he was still thinking about her when he went on his European adventure (as indicated by the postcard Hugo finds), and they had some sort of relationship in the 90s, otherwise Aoife wouldn't exist. But we don't know how or when they got together, or whether the relationship was serious when Holly tells Ed that she's pregnant. Holly seems to be a fairly independent person and Ed's somewhat obsession about being in the right place at the right time to maintain his journalistic prominence seems to be his way of establishing independence, even if it means being away from his family. Perhaps he feels as though he is no longer needed, or his time in Iraq makes him feel like he no longer fits in to his normal surroundings.
As an American, the Iraq pieces didn't bother me. In fact, it sort of represented a common viewpoint I encountered over and over again in the mid 2000s - that all Americans were somehow responsible for the war, or had at least supported it. I spent half of 2005 in Argentina and the summer of 2006 in London. In both places, when some people (more so in Argentina than in London) found out I was American, they would give me a really hard time and ask how Bush could do the things he did, who did he think he was, and could I tell him to eff off. I never had a chance to explain that I never voted for Bush, never supported the war, and was just as confused and upset as they were. So, even though I don't agree with the view that war can be expected from all Americans, it is a familiar view, and was especially so at that time, so I can't blame Mitchell for bringing it up - he certainly wasn't the first.
