21st Century Literature discussion
2015 Book Discussions
>
The Bone Clocks - Part V: An Horologist's Labyrinth (February 2015)
message 1:
by
Violet
(new)
Feb 07, 2015 02:49AM
This is the thread to discuss part five of The Bone Clocks: An Horologist's Labyrinth. (I'm still lagging a lap behind but hope to make up some ground this weekend.)
reply
|
flag
So this is the chapter that, in Ben's words, the story "rocket off into the supernatural". I think some reviewers had a real problem with the fantasy elements here. Personally, I think he needed to resolve the fantasy subplot and this was as good a place as any.
Continuing with listening to what I've said before -- we're still in a psychological and sociological narrative with religion getting a front row seat. This part is offering up a philosophical basis. My personal reading is that everything's a metaphor for interpersonal life in the real(ish) world.The anchorites practice their carnivorous magic through physical actions and objects. Horologists use mind touch stuff. They don't open apertures or put their souls in paintings and buildings.
I'm currently on the alert for nature references. Holly is safer in the vicinity of Central Park. Mitchell repeats "green man" here, again as a sign to walk/don't walk; the earlier one was in Hugo's chapter. Need to look up Green Man, which is what? Pagan echoes in Christianity, right?
I'm having a very satisfying "reader response" experience. Again and again, it elicits the kind of thinking I most enjoy, which is both philosophical and personal and is embedded in language.
When Marinus gives Holly a gloss of the Atemporals' history, I noted that it resembled in form and texture Brubeck's gloss of war in Iraq: many factions chaotically mixing it up with chaotic results.
Two sides of the war: individual/species, competition/cooperation, sex/family, organic/fabricated . . . are we getting the hint yet that ecology is a theme?
Ian wrote: "I am an atheist, and I suspect Mitchell is as well, so it's interesting that the transmigration of souls and deities takes such a prominent role in his fiction. "Significant to me is his acknowledged affinity with Buddhism. I've been an atheist since I was like five years old. Religions are, to my mind, better seen as "wisdom traditions."
YMMV: Zen is like atheistic Buddhism. There's a twist to it -- passing through the gateless gate involves engaging with, if applicable, one's supernatural (immortal) yearnings. If otherwise and/or additionally applicable, one must pass through scientific, conceptual, metaphorical, cultural* and analytic filters.
Reincarnation is to be taken metaphorically rather than too literally, as it is easily interpreted in these times. There is no supernatural soul stuff. But what, I ask and Mitchell too apparently asks, is the lived human experience that gives rise to such a notion? What causes, what results?
*Edited to add
Ian, we'll be wrapping up with a "whole book" discussion after discussing the parts. And with that, I'm back to this part, and noting what I encounter therein.
Hell no. I have a penchant my own self for launching into the nethersphere. Usually I don't participate at all until the whole book thread gets opened. So you and I seem to be having a similar learning experience going on. It's all good!My advice to myself is to keep on topic, the current section. That I share that advice is, yes, a suggestion. I look forward to metaphysical discussion, but not quite yet, while I'm still involved in reading what's in front of me right now.
I had a little bit of trouble with this part just keeping everyone straight and what the difference was between a sojourner and the other atemporals, how the anchorites came into being, how they differed from the horolites... Not to mention who was in whose body at any given time! I can see where some people might think this part was hokey, not being able to suspend disbelief. It was not very difficult for me as I half believe this kind of stuff is possible! And yes, it was somewhat contemplating the devine's "need" for the human, the unique life experience we must have, our death. Also as Ian mentioned are wars of the gods being fought through humans? Do the gods need us as much as we need them? What does it all mean? The mind boggles!
Lacewing wrote: "Two sides of the war: individual/species, competition/cooperation, sex/family, organic/fabricated . . . are we getting the hint yet that ecology is a theme?"ah yes!
As a huge sci fi/fantasy reader, I really enjoyed this part where the fantasy takes the main role. As I find common in sci fi and fantasy, in Mitchell's world issues pertinent to the real world are considered. This second mission (military term), it seems to me, was undertaken by the Horologists at that point in time because of the info about the Script from Esther (reminded me of the story of the Enigma code that is told in the movie the Imagination Game). It is war, with double agents on both sides. Holly understandably is most reluctant to believe any of this, but she is really the hero - first by unknowingly harboring Esther and then by killing Constantini. Holly is protecting her family, which the Horologists have become. And there is some redemption for Hugo - even the most flawed can be redeemed?
And, as with part two, we have the Marinus's flashbacks that provide the background of the atemporals, the anchorites, and the Horologists - brilliant from my perspective.
Mod
As a science fiction and fantasy reader, I had exactly the opposite reaction to this section. I may be on high alert for disappointment after the last section, but this one hit on almost every cliché of what I consider second rate fantasy:
- Too much jargon: “I need to revoke my Act of Immunity, so we can merge our psychovoltage" as just one egregious example.
- Characters who vacillate between genius and complete idiocy. "Holly may not be safe. Oh, crap, they kidnapped Holly!"
- Vaguely defined powers whose limitations are only defined as far as convenient for the plot, in this case the precognition.
- Cute references to past events from the future that we in the past will find amusing: "Justin Bieber's Fifth Divorce".
- Deus ex Machina use of powers that might make even Harry Potter blush.
- Clichéd characters: Pfenninger, for example, could easily have been the villain in a second rate Bond film.
And, I have to ask, any other Firefly fans here who couldn't help but think “Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!” during the seen where Sadaqat reveals himself as an Anchorite agent?
As far as the philosophical aspects, I honestly didn't find much here that rose above the trite. Perhaps I am being unjustly harsh as I've liked David Mitchell's other books so much.
I do agree with your (Linda’s) appreciation of Marinus's flashbacks. I thought that was a great method of exposition. And I loved the little details that were revealed, such as Ed staying in town to see Aofie in The Wizard of Oz.
I actually enjoyed this part more than any since the second. In some ways I kind of agree with many of your points, Whitney. But somehow now the book seemed to be getting on with stuff that it had been skirting around; it seemed to be being more true to itself. When we were learning about Marinus' past, the little details seemed nicely real and open-ended, and when we were hurtling towards the denouement, drawing together the threads from the whole book, the writing seemed more confident somehow.
I liked how 'Jacko' resolved, and Hugo too. Nothing especially innovative, but satisfying.
But I wonder if some of this is precisely because of low expectations from previous chapters.
Lacewing, I love your reader-response approach, but I find it very difficult to move away from judging, unless the work is very good. It's like the quality of the work is a window through which I can see these themes and responses. When the quality is (from my point of view) lower, it's like the window is smudged, and this makes it hard to enjoy the view.
But yes on the Jargon. The fact that there are these solid names for things makes it sound like its all written out somewhere; like it's all on Wikipedia, rather than this spoken tradition carried on by a handful of people. I would have liked hazier names for things, rather than very precise, specific ones with Capital Letters.
Terry, this is my third novel of his, and I've yet to give any of them five stars. Playing with style appears to be one of his aesthetic interests, and maybe it's not just play but commentary. He challenges me to think about style as a writer's character defense, or as an indication of his or her way of entering a creative process. Whitney, fantasy hasn't been able to reach me, but the previous sections set me up to see into how it works for those it does reach. Your comments about it being amateur spur me to wonder if he exaggerated for a purpose. Maybe so?
I absolutely loved Ghostwritten and Cloud Atlas at the time. I wonder if I've changed as a reader. I've grown to like each Murakami novel less than the last, as well. Are there sensibilities I have now I didn't ten or twelve years ago when I was reading The Wind Up Bird Chronicle and Cloud Atlas, or did those writers just get less good?He definitely loves playing with style and structure, which per se I like too, but I'm not enjoying the styles these chapters are written in, on a sentence by sentence basis, enough to transcend the knowledge that I'm reading. Most of the time anyway -- some passages have drawn me in.
Mod
Terry: I've been asking myself that same question about whether I've changed as a reader... I'm sure that I have somewhat, but I think in some instances, the novelty has worn off and what first appeared as brilliant and unique starts to feel a bit like a writer's schtick. In this case, I just don't think the parts fit together all that well into a whole--they feel forced and artificial. I loved many of the characters, enjoyed quite a few of the parts, and found myself mulling over many of the larger ideas/themes.
While I liked this part, I did think the writing of the actual battle to be over the top and full of inane dialogue (whether telepathic or verbal). What I really enjoyed were Marinus' flashbacks that explained the fantasy characters and groups and what was going on with them. A lot of information was packed in, and I thought it was well done. In contrast, the battle scene seemed a bit silly.
Mod
That's the part I thought was poorly written.
Mod
Yes to the points both of you raise. I found myself wondering if Mitchell may be to some extent the M. Night Shyamalan of literature. What might have seemed exciting and fresh initially later revealing itself as schtick, as you put it. I sure hope not.
Lacewing, when you say the writing may be intentionally exaggerated, to what purpose do you think Mitchell may be doing that? When a writer has intentional cliches, it's usually for the purpose of subverting them, but Mitchell seems to be to be embracing them.
Mod
Priceless. I'm hoping this is just a hiccup in an otherwise long and distinguished literary career. Fingers crossed/knocking on wood/salt tossed over shoulder.
Marc and Whitney: He's created more approachable characters in other books, so he can when he wants to. The Horologists are approachable here, while the others shade into caricature. Many of us have commented about annoyance with various narrators.I got a personal reaction which was interesting and satisfying, and just maybe he intended that, or intended something else, but I'm not quite ready to see it as falling down on the job. He takes his work seriously and is quite adventurous in how he goes about it.
Mod
Y'all are making me think too hard! I'm like, I dunno but maybe this, maybe that. Adding: compare cliches to tropes? Interesting to me, anyway.
Mod
Mod
Of course, meta-genius! I take back my criticisms, I obviously missed the Amis subtext.
I’m reading through all the posts here and so far I think Whitney elucidates brilliantly most of my own reservations about this chapter. Likewise the elements I enjoyed – especially Marinus (the ancient mariner) revisiting his past lives which was a great piece of writing. In fact I enjoyed this part until the battle. Though I even enjoyed that in the way one enjoys pantomime once I had accustomed myself to its hammy over exuberance and cheap plot devices. There was a lot of Dr Who (do you see this is the US?) in this chapter, intended I’m sure, with Marinus as the doctor and Holly as the female assistant to whom everything can be conveniently explained in layman’s terms and who switches from smart to dumb according to plot requirements. There’s no question Mitchell had a lot of fun writing this but there is a sense he allowed himself too much licence to send up the fantasy genre. Either that or, like a child, he just got too carried away with his game. A question for you, Whitney as a SF buff – do you think Mitchell was sending up the SF genre? It seems unlikely to me that such an intelligent and usually conscientious novelist would resort to such slapstick unless it was somehow intended? Obviously there’s a great deal of mischief in this novel but perhaps one problem is he went over the top?
So yep, the terminology was awkward, as was the device of using Holly as a conduit for every inconvenient plot problem. The villains were all slapstick, though we had a warning this was going to be the case with Hugo’s earlier meeting with Crispin. But I feel a bit mean being so critical cos I have really enjoyed reading this novel despite all its flaws. You can’t deny its vitality and its rampant joie de vivre.
What happened to Ian? All his posts seem to be missing?
Terry, I could make the same case for myself. It’s been years since I read Ghostwritten but I did recently reread the thousand Autumns and found I admired it more, rather than less, second time round. My thinking is The Bone Clocks is simply his least successful novel. But I don't think it should call into question his high ranking as an exciting and brilliant novelist. To bring in Amis again, he's written some appalling novels but they shouldn't belittle his earlier brilliant achievements.
Linda, I'm with you all the way. From the sublime (Marinus's past lives) to the ridiculous (the battle).
Lacewing, I think I'm going to wait until i finish the novel before commenting on the philosophy of this novel. But still loving your archaeology and insights.
Looking forward to it. Still interested in a Jungian treatment, Violet.
Lacewing wrote: "Looking forward to it. Still interested in a Jungian treatment, Violet."Well, your comment about the green man. If i remember correctly one of Jung's insights into the significance of the green man had to do with base metal in the alchemical process. This, maybe, would suit Hugo's journey (haven't read last chapter yet) but there's a hint of base metal to gold about Hugo's role in the novel.
Alchemy, Christianity, Shintoism, Daoism, Buddhism, and on and on through all three of his books that I've read. Mitchell's covering all the metaphysical bases.
Mod
I love that you brought up Dr.Who, I see the similarities as well. I made a note that Mitchell uses "Terms and Conditions" in the same way Dr. Who uses "Timelocked"; as a convenient, hand-wavy way to explain why special powers can't be used in a particular situation.
"...do you think Mitchell was sending up the SF genre? It seems unlikely to me that such an intelligent and usually conscientious novelist would resort to such slapstick unless it was somehow intended? "
No, I don't think he was trying to parody anything, I just think he isn't very good at it. I don't think he was very good at it when he attempted it in "Somni 451" either, as much as I loved Cloud Atlas.
Whitney, Cloud atlas was probably my literary introduction into SF in any shape or form and though I saw he had shoplifted elements of Bladerunner I really enjoyed Somni. The interview/archivist technique was a clever device of exposition, much less clumsy than the question and answer routine between Marinus and Holly. So, though I'm a novice with SF, I much preferred Somni to this which seemed real B movie fodder at times. Interesting (and a bit depressing!) that you think he was in earnest.
Oh, yeah. Archivist; the word was used somewhere in passing, maybe in Ed's part.
Mod
I think I'd find it more depressing if he built this world and these characters just for the sake of cheap laughs. "It's not bad fantasy, it's a PARODY of bad fantasy you ignorant fools" seems beneath a writer of Mitchell's stature.
I think I'd find it more depressing if he built this world and these characters just for the sake of cheap laughs."Yep, see your point!
Whitney wrote: "It's not bad fantasy, it's a PARODY of bad fantasy you ignorant fools" seems beneath a writer of Mitchell's stature. "
I am inordinately glad to hear this said here. It animates my Zen Bones. In this group I rattle Zen Bones while in my zen group I rattle Literary Bones. Both are vital in the way that skeletons are vital and I'm having a fine old time here there and everywhere.
LOL. We're super happy to have your zen bones here.
Violet wrote: "What happened to Ian? All his posts seem to be missing?"I'll repost them in the wrap thread when I get back from a business trip.
Ian wrote: "Violet wrote: "What happened to Ian? All his posts seem to be missing?"I'll repost them in the wrap thread when I get back from a business trip."
Great. Look forward to it. Best of luck with the BT.
Great quote from Virginia Woolf about the writer/reader relationship - The proper readers become the author's fellow-workers. They must surrender to the author's unique world and bare their minds to the author's signals. To read as the writer's accomplice is to recover the mind's natural functions: the surge of emotion, the play of curiosity, the urge to remember, the need for balance, the wish to compose a whole.
Also expresses really well why I love this reading group which is a honeycomb of "proper readers".
Here's an angle to try: As Holly's psychiatrist, Marinus needed to assist her through the maze of her subconscious. Meanwhile, there are multiple purposes to any scene (in any decent novel). The fantasy setting served other purposes, and . . . Here's my latest take on tropes, the many, many cultural references we get, and one source that is implied but not mentioned (and I think not referenced) -- which is TV. Think rapid channel-changing and superficial treatment of material and how schizophrenic it seems. It's all so ubiquitous that a poet/sociologist might cast it as a sign of society's cultural subconscious.
Another great interpretation. The pyschoanalst and the TV swamped consciousness of Holly, who in the novel is the character/consciousness of our times. And i think you might be onto something re the superficial treatment of the material as an intended part of the novel's plotting. The exuberant slaloms down into pastiche at times seemed like knowing winks, as if he was deliberately sending up contemporary culture counterparts.
Mod
I see the whole of The Bone Clocks as a hymn to music, adventure stories, TV and B-movies. It's how bone clocks preoccupy themselves while on earth.
Whitney wrote: "Wait, where is this "TV swamped" interpretation coming from? Where in the text do you see this implied?"Personally I didn't, Whitney. I'm just plugging into Lacewing's current for the ride. But you could probably write a treatise on this theory.
I think by its glaring absence, Whitney. A few here brought up East Enders, Dr Who. When reading Ed's part I had TV impressions of news commentators, but didn't bring it to the fore. He brings in radio, print, film, poetry, clothing, buildings and yet "forgets" TV? TV for some is maybe like the lens through which the world is seen, but like eyeballs, it's easy to forget the filters when they're always, always there.
21st Century Literature
Books mentioned in this topic
The War Against Cliché: Essays and Reviews 1971-2000 (other topics)The War Against Cliché: Essays and Reviews 1971-2000 (other topics)
