Cloud Atlas
discussion
pretentious???
I do agree with you. One other thing that was a bit annoying was if he seemed to write himself into a bit of orthodoxy, or something that seemed to common or pulpish, he would simply explain it away in a part of another story. For instance, how the young woman reporters story became a screenplay in the next storyCreating no commonalities between the stories though would have seemed a bit odd though. I did look forward to the threads being revealed from one story to the next.
sometimes i feel like that sort of explaining away is because he didn't know how else to include it in the book. its kind of like when you watch an entire movie (or read a whole book!) and at the end they say "and then he woke up". it's kind of a cop out. but don't take me wrong, i really enjoyed this book and I don't think it was pretentious at. I think that this was the perfect place for mitchell to show his amazing writing skills. i only wish that i could write as eloquently and diverse as he can. too bas Black Swan Green fell short.
I'm on the same page as you guys on this one. I enjoyed it.... but I expected something groundbreaking to weave all of these threads together. After reading the reviews, I thought this was going to be be well worth the journey, and although I enjoyed it, I found it all a bit contrived in the end. I thought the treads were very loosely tied together. It felt cheap.
I agree with everyone else... I was pretty disappointed. I wouldn't say it was pretentious, though, because I don't think it was particularly skilfully done. Nothing there to show off.
there is an explanation of the way everything is linked on wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_At... although obviously what is written cannot be 100% reliable. I didn't personaly mind the lack of explanation. I thought it was a great story in itself, and the linking of each story was just rather clever, rather than pretentious.
Wasn't too impressed to be honest. Yes he can write in several styles, but none of the stories were particularly good or well told. None of the sentences made me want to savour them as with more skillful writing and the whole thing annoyed me, frankly. I was just getting through it, because I had been told it was good, rather than enjoying it.When Frobisher talks of the format for his Cloud Atlas Sextet (the same format as the book), unsure whether this will be genius or just gimmicky, I just thought: gimmicky!
I think it's been met with pretentious acclaim though - no idea why it was shortlisted for the Man Booker - it's just another, fairly mediocre, book.
I read this, thought about it for a while and then kind of panned it in my good reads review. Clever in some places but perhaps with a hint of smug too (that may go for my review and the book!) ;)
Absolutely brilliant novel! This book should have received all the acclaim so mistakenly applied to Franzen's tedious novel. The first narrator is a bit of a slog to get through, but that fits with the style. The rest of the stories weave together the themes of man's inhumanity to man, runaway consumerism, and the role of the artist. All with a witty skewering of post-modern self-awareness.
Of course this book is pretentious! It's long, difficult and ultimately, it's pretty much without meaning or emotional impact. None of that means it isn't great though. Let us be unpretentious enough to admit that we like pretentious things.
I liked it, I prefered Calvino's If On A Winters Night A Travller which Mitchell sighted as the inspiration for Cloud Atlas - If has a series of stories starting but not resolving, Mitchell stated that he wanted to end all of the talesAtlas was a clever and compelling romp and I am very curious to see the movie version the Warshawski brothers are pulling together with tom hanks
Jamie wrote: "Of course this book is pretentious! It's long, difficult and ultimately, it's pretty much without meaning or emotional impact. None of that means it isn't great though. Let us be unpretentious enou..."Pretentious....without meaning....huh?
Michael wrote: "Jamie wrote: "Of course this book is pretentious! It's long, difficult and ultimately, it's pretty much without meaning or emotional impact. None of that means it isn't great though. Let us be unpr..."Sure. That's been the consistent criticism of Cloud Atlas since it was published. It's six very loosely aligned stories strung together with nothing but some truly dazzling writing. And while that's remarkable, it isn't meaningful. Some of the individual stories pack an emotional punch and Mitchell manages to make us care about some of the characters, but in the end it doesn't add up to very much. Which is fine. I loved reading this book; it's wonderful writing; it's fun; I recommend it anyone who loves to read, but none of that makes it's a great novel.
Gee,I thought it had a lot to say about mankind's abuse of his fellow man and his planet :-)
I'm delighted that David Mitchell has so many readers, even though a fair percentage of them really haven't enjoyed the experience. To them I recommend "Black Swan Green" or the much more conventional, but not quite straightforward "The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet." I found both fascinating - and "Black Swan Green" not merely a good and entertaining story (or string of connected short stories) but great literature as well. In the "The Thousand Autumns" I missed the element of surreality of Mitchell's first three books, which also tinges the fourth, "Black Swan Green." Do recognize, though, that literary fiction is something of an acquired taste - most who like it a lot have a high tolerance for ambiguity, delayed punchlines, quirky time shifts and narrative leaps, unannounced changes of points of view, unusual punctuation or lack thereof, whole toolkits filled with postmodern/self-referential narrative devices, etc.. Those who don't like it often turn out to actively hate it, like people who fancy whiskey (Canadian, Bourbon, Scotch, lots of different whiskies) but DETEST Islay scotches as disgustingly medicinal or just...off. THAT's a seriously acquired taste.
And as I see it, there's really no accounting for taste. It's all opinion, not good or bad, better or worse: what you and I like and agree on is...well, good. But not better than those who thought Mitchell a "show-off" in some pejorative sense. (That said, he's writing fiction for pay. Of course he's showing off. He wants to be read, discussed, and purchased.) But IMO he doesn't engage in empty displays of technique, even though he's a technically gifted writer, and in the view of many estimable writers and critics the most talented of his entire generation, on both sides of the pond. He's also a marvelously imaginative storyteller and one who, like a poet, "stretches the language." I look forward to his every work. Those who don't should simply find something else to read. But do read.
I totally disagree with both the Cloud-Atlas-admirers and the Could-Atlas-detractors who characterize the novel as without meaning. Indeed, to me, one potential criticism of the novel is that Mitchell made the intended meaning of this novel all too clear, obviating the reader from having to do any "work" in figuring out its message.In my reading, Cloud Atlas is six very distinct retellings of the very same story in which a narrator who subscribes to some form of Kantian ethos must face and, to varying extents, overcome the Nietzschean nihilism of his (or her) fellow humans. By telling these six different stories over very different time periods, and in various different genres, Mitchell intends to set up this conflict as the fundamental underlying conflict of humanity. Same story, over and over and over again, just different "scenery" (if you will) ... hence the birthmark repeated on each of the narrators, and the interconnection of each of the narrations themselves (no matter the format that they take).
Indeed, what I really LOVE about the novel, but which I could see others criticizing, is how extraordinarily explicit Mitchell makes this conceit in the final portion of The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing: he basically comes out and articulates, in as character-appropriate a manner as possible, what the Kantian ethos is and why Adam chooses to live by it (and reject the nihilistic alternative), notwithstanding the terrible fate that nearly befell him. I mean, he's basically hitting out heads with what he's intended to communicate! That's why I am rather shocked to read here that some of you found the novel meaningless.
As far as pretentiousness: It is ABSOLUTELY pretentious! But that's a plus! Mitchell is a total show-off in what he managed to accomplish with Cloud Atlas, and he should be! I can barely imagine sustaining a short story in any one of those six genres contained in Cloud Atlas, and yet he manages to pull off all six in the same novel! The genius of his craft is particularly apparent in The Pacific Journal and Sloosha's Crossing: to be able simultaneously to master both 18th Century American English and the invented pidgin English of post-apocalyptic Hawaii blew me away.
NB: I just joined Goodreads, and the only review I've written yet is for Cloud Atlas, because it's my absolutely favorite novel ever. But I will say this, to counterbalance the above: I have recommended Cloud Atlas *countless* times to close friends and family members in the six years since I first read it, and no one has EVER had as strong of a reaction to it as I did. Most people, when I ask what they thought after finishing it, have reactions far more in line with the comments posted above by Jamie, Mitchell, and Melissa. FWIW.
Chad wrote: "I totally disagree with both the Cloud-Atlas-admirers and the Could-Atlas-detractors who characterize the novel as without meaning. Indeed, to me, one potential criticism of the novel is that Mitc..."bravo! i'm with you. this is the best novel i have read in years...maybe the best ever!
"When Frobisher talks of the format for his Cloud Atlas Sextet (the same format as the book), unsure whether this will be genius or just gimmicky, I just thought: gimmicky!"
Leading up to that I had thought the book was rather gimmicky myself, but of course with its own charm. Once Frobisher described that I immediately changed my mind because clearly Mitchell was aware of what he was doing, making it for me neither pretentious nor gimmicky.
Aside from speaking about the role of mankind and the planet, it's also talking about storytelling in general which, as Paul touched on above, is an aspect of post-modern fiction that requires a certain taste for. For me, Cloud Atlas was, while perhaps cheaply fun and clever, also was rather dense in its layers of meaning. Like anything, the experience of it depends on what you are willing to think twice about. Or three times, or four...
Leading up to that I had thought the book was rather gimmicky myself, but of course with its own charm. Once Frobisher described that I immediately changed my mind because clearly Mitchell was aware of what he was doing, making it for me neither pretentious nor gimmicky.
Aside from speaking about the role of mankind and the planet, it's also talking about storytelling in general which, as Paul touched on above, is an aspect of post-modern fiction that requires a certain taste for. For me, Cloud Atlas was, while perhaps cheaply fun and clever, also was rather dense in its layers of meaning. Like anything, the experience of it depends on what you are willing to think twice about. Or three times, or four...
I enjoyed the first half but was very disappointed with the second. The way the stories were resolved was a bit of a let down. In terms of the narrative structure I thought he was trying too hard. Plus I thought the showmanship kind of inadequate for the supposed urgency of the content. In the end the book was all about his writing ability.
Chad wrote: "I totally disagree with both the Cloud-Atlas-admirers and the Could-Atlas-detractors who characterize the novel as without meaning. Indeed, to me, one potential criticism of the novel is that Mitc..."I agree with you, but I don't think that the meaning is too clear, because I don't think Mitchell wanted people to 'work' to understand his book. I think he wanted people to be left thinking about the meaning, not wondering what it was. The book is obviously designed to leave the reader contemplating the idea of power, who has it and who abuses it, is our world so different from Sonmi's, and what can the average man do to change things? It's great writing, a great story, great characters, and a great message. I think people who call it pretentious are too focused on Literature as an art, instead of as a form of communication.
If I ever reach a point where I can't enjoy a novel like Cloud Atlas because I consider it "pretentious" I think I should stop and reread some children's literature, so I remember that books can be FUN as well as educational.
Melissa wrote: "Wasn't too impressed to be honest. Yes he can write in several styles, but none of the stories were particularly good or well told. None of the sentences made me want to savour them as with more sk..."I completely agree. I was expecting this book to eventually weave the stories together in a way that you didn't expect and to do it very well, but it did none of those things, the links were minor at best and had almost no effect on each individual story, each of the six stories would have been no worse for having no link with the others.
I think some of the six stories had potential, and would have been good stories if further developed in their own right but it never came together and they all felt to me to be rather lacking.
Having read in all of the sub-genres he covered in the book, I was absolutely amazed at his skill and talent. He was able to capture the voice and flavor of each. I also particularly enjoyed the stairstep concept he used and the connections between stories. I was particularly impressed by his "coverage" of Herman Melville and Margaret Atwood, although he may be surprised at my connections and say he had other authors in mind. Ha ha... All-in-all, a rare find!
Definition of PRETENTIOUS1: characterized by pretension: as a) : making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing) b) : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature
2: making demands on one's skill, ability, or means : ambitious
Merriam Webster
So, yes, the book is pretentious but by the second definition only. It was the first David Mitchell I read and I was intoxicated by the way the substories were all in different voices and the incomplete sections linked to each other. Having neither the knowledge, nor the balls, to write about Kant or Neitsche I will pass no comment but would remind all readers that pretentious has two definitions
Jamie wrote: "Of course this book is pretentious! It's long, difficult and ultimately, it's pretty much without meaning or emotional impact. None of that means it isn't great though. Let us be unpretentious enou..."You just expressed the very reason I didn't enjoy this book but in way fewer words and more cleanly than I did in my own review. The book had "no emotional impact". Thanks for saying it better than I did!
Chad wrote: "I totally disagree with both the Cloud-Atlas-admirers and the Could-Atlas-detractors who characterize the novel as without meaning. Indeed, to me, one potential criticism of the novel is that Mitc..."Excellent commentary. I completely agree with your observation that the book is ripe with meaning; it is one of the most affecting and powerful novels I've read.
But I did want to engage your discussion of the principal theme of the novel a bit more deeply. Like you, I was struck by the tension that Mitchell sets up between the predatory side of humanity and our more benevolent nature. I did not, however, see this as a struggle between a Kantian ethos and a Nietzschean nihilism. Rather, I read the book as a powerful (and, to me, original) commentary on the nature of human goodness.
Throughout the six stories Mitchell tells, we see the failure of different human institutions designed to improve or correct our violent, predatory nature: religion in the first story, art in the second, government in the third, family in the fourth (this one I'm a little less sure of . . .) industry/economy in the fifth, and science in the sixth. All of these institutions are undermined by the malicious intentions and violent acts of individuals, and to me, they reflect the ultimate failure of the Kantian project to ground morality in the secure foundations of human reason.
But the meaning of the story is not as bleak as many people claim. As these same six stories illustrate, human goodness is possible, but it does not stem from reason or human institutions. It is rooted only in the fragile and tenuous will-to-benevolence that occurs when one human risks his or her life to help another. In this way, Mitchell is illustrating the counter-point to Nietzsche's will-to-power. Human goodness, in other words, is not rooted in a Kantian ethos (indeed, he illustrates how this idea continually fails to protect us from predation) but a reflection of the ephemeral and contingent choice by one human to help and care for another.
We can even interpret the title of the book as a commentary on the foundations of human society: it does not rest on the shoulders of the secure, timeless pillars of reason (as Kant argued) but on the contingent choice of one person to help another in need, a foundation that is no more secure than a cloud, perhaps, but the only foundation we have.
I'm curious what your thoughts are on my take, but in any case, thanks for the great commentary.
![s.penkevich [hiatus-will return-miss you all]](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1735525095p1/6431467.jpg)
Calling something pretentious is often just a defense mechanism for when someone doesn't quite understand something. They get two pages into the more tedious prose and say "this is terrible and pretentious" without finishing it and seeing where it is headed and most importantly why it is that way. They are projecting their own shortcomings much the way a bully beats up on a kid to make himself feel better.This novel is often labeled pretentious since there is a lot of depth to it; huge sections of the novel are double entendres where Mitchell is actually reflecting on his own novel as well as advancing a plot. I agree with what Chad wrote up above that this novel is overflowing with meaning and depth and Mitchell was really trying to get a point across, not just showboating as others call it. He just happens to be able to convey a message in a high-brow wholly inventive and abstract manner. Mitchell is challenging you as a reader to rise up out of the dull and into his world. There are so many hidden jokes and messages in this novel that he wants you to find, and these require you to read into his words and not just follow along a plot. Plots are for the weak anyways.
It's interesting that so many people think that the stories don't come together or there wasn't any direct emotional impact.To me, the stories came together beautifully, but only on a thematic level. It could be that I care much less about literal, plot-driven connections. I think Mitchell is more of a good enough writer to have "written in" more literal connections. But that would undercut the idea that all these people in the book are connected on a much more profound level than just a few degrees of separation. They are connected in the fact that they are all undergoing the same struggle of people faced with the possible absurdity of human ethics and the choices they make to assuage such a notion.
And, if Mitchell had written much more coincidental and intersecting plot lines, the work would have felt even more contrived.
The last page really cut to the heart of the book, and for me the experience of being a single human faced with the entirety of human history. Which is seems is summated in the fact that we get individual accounts, through first-person narration, yet the book covers a wide breadth of human experience.
I think Mitchell is more of a good enough writer to have "written in" more literal connections. But that would undercut the idea that all these people in the book are connected on a much more profound level than just a few degrees of separation. Couldn't agree more. What makes this book so excellent is his careful balance with all the different aspects. There was never too much or too little with anything, be it connections, plot, etc. This was far too clever and balanced of a novel to just simply be 'pretentious' and contrived.
I found it a chore and a complete headache to read. The story and writing style didn't interest me and like another reader I plodded on because I was told it was a great read. He is a clever writer and not at all pretentious. Black Swan Green is better.
s.penkevich wrote: "Calling something pretentious is often just a defense mechanism for when someone doesn't quite understand something. They get two pages into the more tedious prose and say "this is terrible and pre..."Although we are in agreement about our love for Cloud Atlas, I find this to be a difficult position to take. While I'm willing to accept that you may be much smarter and a better reader than myself, I'm sure there are books that have really confounded you or gone over your head. It seems inevitable to happen. If anyone has read Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow and Infinite Jest and come out the other side saying "that wasn't hard at all!" I honestly wouldn't believe them.
The argument that people simply label difficult texts as pretentious because they didn't understand it, does have some validity. However, I think it can come across as condescending to simply say that people "don't get it". There is a wide variety of challenges that can face a reader in a novel. There is no perfect standard for what makes a book hard for some and hard for others. I've had books that I thought were a breeze to read, yet were very difficult for another and that same person blew through a book that I found very hard to get into.
So, I think some patience with those who don't like this book is better. I've recommended it to so many people and not everyone has loved it. Many gave up on it. But I truly believe there is at least something to enjoy in this book because there is so much to it. I find it hard to believe that a person who took the time to really read and work with this all the way through would completely hate it at the end.
Ha I did sort of strong-arm an opinion in there, I guess I got frustrated seeing so many comments about people saying this novel was terrible. There are many difficult books that I admittedly struggled through, but I didn't consider them pretentious for it, just books by authors above and beyond most. I was more trying to express that 'pretentious' gets tossed around a lot when the term 'difficult' would be a better term. My initial comments were far more pretentious than this book ha.
Linda wrote: "Having read in all of the sub-genres he covered in the book, I was absolutely amazed at his skill and talent. He was able to capture the voice and flavor of each. I also particularly enjoyed the st..."
Absolutely
Absolutely
Stephen M wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Calling something pretentious is often just a defense mechanism for when someone doesn't quite understand something. They get two pages into the more tedious prose and say "this..."
Stephen M wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Calling something pretentious is often just a defense mechanism for when someone doesn't quite understand something. They get two pages into the more tedious prose and say "this..."
Both of these comments seem valid to me. And I found Cloud Atlas a display of thrilling facility, in which he conjures up facsimiles of historical periods by nailing the "styles" of each so flawlessly that then i followed willingly into science-fiction as well.
I said "boo" to Black Swan Green: you can check my review to see why. But I loved his Atlas and felt it witnessed the moral vision I have of the world. Meaningful, therefore, in a life-affirming way.
Stephen M wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Calling something pretentious is often just a defense mechanism for when someone doesn't quite understand something. They get two pages into the more tedious prose and say "this..."
Both of these comments seem valid to me. And I found Cloud Atlas a display of thrilling facility, in which he conjures up facsimiles of historical periods by nailing the "styles" of each so flawlessly that then i followed willingly into science-fiction as well.
I said "boo" to Black Swan Green: you can check my review to see why. But I loved his Atlas and felt it witnessed the moral vision I have of the world. Meaningful, therefore, in a life-affirming way.
Pretentious? I had a completely different reaction.First of all, the varied writing styles really amazed me. Never a fan of Melville, I plodded through the first part. It wasn't bad. But the one thing that hooked me, and kept me going, was the description of the Utopian Moriori contrasted with the savage invading Maori.
I was pretty certain that I was scenting the main theme of the novel there. And, sure enough, it was.
Mitchell dances this theme through several delicously pulp genres. I mean, a 1970's corporate thriller ala "All the President's Men"--complete with a minor rock musician straight out of "This is Spinal Tap"? And a delightful Hollywood-style comedy about old people breaking out of a repressive retirement home? And Philip K. Dick-like bleak, industrial SF future? Not to mention a "Riddley Walker"-like dystopia where they speak a believably modified dialect of English?
All in all, I found the ride fascinating. The language simple. The genres familiar. And the central theme, that being really human takes more courage, and seems less courageous, than going to battle savagely. Which only takes numbers, and not brains.
I half wonder if the cries of pretentiousness come from people's reactions to some of the narrators. I disliked the pompous and deceitful Frobisher at the start of his section. Until I saw life through his eyes. A talented but disowned son. Who was forced to make his own way without practical skills. Bragging seems to be his way of coping with the empty, subservient alienation of his life.
I had other reactions as well. Adam Ewig seemed a Puritanical imbecile at first. Timothy Cavendish seemed a bit of a phoney. And Luisa Rey had a too much of the 70's "It-Girl" feminist vibe--a woman of talent forced into an undesirable role. But I grew to appreciate all of these characters as I read more of them.
I think it's actually somewhat of a cluster novel (a la Welty's The Golden Apples), with interconnected stories, but not necessary inter-related, though each story deals with similar ideas.
Wally said:
The story set in the future Hawaii was difficult to read, difficult to understand, and had that story been the 1st in line, I'd have laid the story aside, unread. A bit of dialect is fine...but that section was...well, okay, pretentious.
LOL. Good point.
But I am pretty sure in Sloosha's Crossin' an' Ev'rythin' After Mitchell is alluding to other post-apocalyptic genre pieces, notably Russel Hoban's Ridley Walker . This is an entire novel, told in first person in a entirely new dialect--exactly like the Zach section.
However, I am a auditory person, and "hear" as I read. So, once I got used the the dialect, I was okay. Though I did have to retrace the first 20 pages of the section when I got used to it.
Scratching my head here. Not sure why so many people found this book to be meaningless, with the structure for structure's sake. I remember being quite moved at the end of the novel. So many people seem to be looking for a plot link to the six different stories, I don't get why a thematic link isn't enough.
Adrien wrote: "Scratching my head here. Not sure why so many people found this book to be meaningless, with the structure for structure's sake. I remember being quite moved at the end of the novel. So many people..."I agree.
Pretentious no, overly ambitious yes. There were flaws in connection from thread to thread, but I enjoyed the character and story development. In looking at a thematic link, I agree you don't need to hemmed into a seamless flow, but then it seems that almost lends itself to a collection of short stories.
Adrien wrote: "Scratching my head here. Not sure why so many people found this book to be meaningless, with the structure for structure's sake. I remember being quite moved at the end of the novel. So many people..."I agree Adrien.I can't really pinpoint why but I was a bit disappointed in his later book The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet.
my review:as a sometimes conservative fiction reader i was a little suspicious of this book, and it honestly took me until i was halfway through to trust it - and then it absolutely seduced and floored me. just when i thought i had to surrender a lot as a reader i was lauded with beautiful surprises.
there are small contrivances in character voice that sometimes don't fit, though the rest of the time it feels spot on. the device mitchell uses is truly original and brilliant - and it never becomes a gimmick or an excuse to make characters and story less luminous.
this one will dwell on my mind for a while *
It's not a matter of being pretentious or a show-off. This is one of the most beautifully crafted and executed books I have ever read. I loved the story that ended in mid-sentence and got picked up later. I loved the new corporate language and vernacular he created in his futuristic story. I loved the structure of moving forward in time and then back again. To me this book was a stunning accomplishment.
Timothy wrote: "It's not a matter of being pretentious or a show-off. This is one of the most beautifully crafted and executed books I have ever read. I loved the story that ended in mid-sentence and got picked ..."I agree.
And as far as "tenuous threads" connecting things go, is that not the way of the world around us, and are the flaws we tell ourselves we detect in those connections not actually flaws in our own perception of things? Is this not one of the principle themes of the book? Do readers of such a book really need to have everything spelled out for them, every step of the way, and, if so, is this need, as a reflection of human nature and society in general, not indicative of a flaw in our very natures, one that has allowed mankind to move steadily toward the very scenarios Mitchell portrays in his novel?
The very fact that this book has sparked such lively and meaningful discussion says all that needs said, in my opinion. That's one of the chief indicators of great fiction, and perhaps one of the foremost duties of the writer. Great fiction is about more than entertainment and escapism, it's also about reflection and introspection and honesty.
Or am I being pretentious? :)
One of the best novels I've ever read—and I've read a few. Cloud Atlas left a lasting impression, years-long, and every time I read it, it somehow manages to surprise and delight me yet again.
Chad wrote: The genius of his craft is particularly apparent in The Pacific Journal and Sloosha's Crossing: to be able simultaneously to master both 18th Century American English and the invented pidgin English of post-apocalyptic Hawaii blew me away.The way you put it here makes the feat particularly impressive.
I unabashedly loved Cloud Atlas. I've read it twice. I especially love the Frobisher story. It speaks to me, if I may use the cliche. It strikes me that those who label Mitchell's work pretentious are themselves guilty of this flaw. It is quite easy to sling mud at the work of another. It is not quite so easy to create enduring work. Over the years I have been guilty of unfair criticism. Then it occurred to me that more likely than not I could do no better than those who I criticize. Now, I am not saying that there is no place for criticism. In fact, I have great respect and admiration for the likes of Harold Bloom. Nevertheless, I believe that the creator of art is far more courageous than the critic of art.
Assman wrote: "Nevertheless, I believe that the creator of art is far more courageous than the critic of art."I agree, though criticism has its place.
Allison wrote: "Some that have read this book call David Mitchel a show off. I, however, completely disagree. Not only does he prove to his readers that he is capable of writing in numerous styles and voices, bu..."I agree with you, Allison. I read this awhile ago, and was blown away, both by the writing and the storytelling ability. I do think leaving some gaps allows room for the reader to supply the connection or meaning. I found it fascinating rather than frustrating...
Timothy wrote: "It's not a matter of being pretentious or a show-off. This is one of the most beautifully crafted and executed books I have ever read. I loved the story that ended in mid-sentence and got picked ..."Hear, hear.
I can see how the pretentious label gets attached to this book as some may consider it to be inaccessible compared to a more traditional read where there are fewer gaps that the mind has to navigate to plow through the story. I couldn't just read books in this style as it does take a more engaged (less passive) reading practice but I do recommend it to people who don't mind veering off to a more challenging read now and then.
Levi wrote: "Allison said Some that have read this book call David Mitchel a show off. I'll begin by saying I haven't read this full post.
I don't get it. How could anyone call him a show off? By 'show..."
Couldn't agree with you more, Levi. He's a phenom. Loved every page of it.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Cloud Atlas (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet (other topics)Cloud Atlas (other topics)
My one criticismm would be that certain commonalities between the stories (like the birth marks) are never really explained or fleshed out. I thought that he either could have created more common threads between the stories or else not attempted it at all.
I read this book over a year and half ago so my memory may not be so sharp...did anybody else notice that the simularities continued and came to something?