Reincarnation and plot-holes?

[K.]

Cecily wrote: "K. wrote: "I immediately got the impression that the Luisa Rey story was written, very cleverly, in style that was not David Mitchell, but David Mitchell imitating a best-selling potboiler author....." Very interesting. I may have to go back to it now... I haven't read his other books (awful, I know); on the strength of _Cloud Atlas_ I'd say his style is that of a virtuoso; maybe a magician.

[Cecily]

Good analogy.

[Kappytaylor]

First, to the person that stated Zachary has a mark on the back of his head. He doesn't. That was strictly in the movie. In the book it was Maryam.

As for the idea of reincarnation, well I was under the assumption that the story followed 2 separate people as they were reincarnated.

Adam and The slave (what was his name?)
Robert and Six smith
Rey and Sixsmith
Cavedish and
Sonmi and Hae-Joo
Maryam and Zachary

Thus, showing the progression of the relationship between the two characters from enmity to, for lack of a better term, partnership. The only problem is that I can not see a plausible second carnation for the Cavedish story. Though there were several other characters that had significant play in his story, no single entity created as much profound change in his life as the others.

I think that the slow progression of their friendships shows the way our society slowly progressed (and regressed) as for the value of equality was seen. Adam and his counterpart were separated by two worlds of society, but brought together through a common goodness--that Adam himself didn't know they both had before their journey together began. Robert and Sixsmith were separated by two worlds of vanity... Sixsmith's lack their of as well as his core of decency, and Robert's absolute love for himself. Yet, they were brought together thorough something else, this common thread that weaved the previous two together, and that led to Sixsmith finding that connection to Rey. And, eventually to Rey finding the connection with Sachs. Rey's story led the thread through to Cavedish, Sonmi and then finally to Meryam and Zachary.

[Paul]

There are actually subtle clues that the Cavendish story is set in the near future, such as the growing deterioration of society and the implications that nuclear disaster is rotting the culture. The world that Cavendish describes is a bleak one indeed.

[Cecily]

Paul wrote: "There are actually subtle clues that the Cavendish story is set in the near future, such as the growing deterioration of society and the implications that nuclear disaster is rotting the culture. ..."

Or is it just a gloomy portrayal of the present? I can't recall anything specific that isn't or couldn't be from the here-and-now (or rather, the early 2000s, when it was written).

[A. H.]

I suspect that what Mitchell has done is craft a vision of the universe in which "reincarnation" is not exactly the concept, but more of a spill-over between minds, which expands the spiritual notions behind reincarnation considerably. The cloudy patterns which roll down through the various stories do re-surface in key characters, but this may not be a "single soul finding new bodies" chain of events; rather it may raise a more interesting question about the psychic cloud beyond identities and how the patterns of that territory emerge and re-emerge into our timelines.

[K.]

Hi Cloud People - Because I can't seem to shake this book (that I read more than a year ago now - and have re read in sections since then), I looked around iTunes the other day for some David Mitchell podcasts and found a real winner at BBC World Book Club. Here's a link to the show's website (I hope):http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/wbc

They apparently repeated it in February 2013 - first broadcast in 2010 I believe. Listening to DM talk I am even more smitten (his manners are excellent, his voice, oh lucky Mrs, Mitchell). All Cloud Atlas secrets revealed! (If you care to think of them as secrets, and if you choose to go along with DM's interpretations). This long thread started with a question on reincarnation plot holes and he answers the reincarnation question squarely in this interview.

[J.]

K. - amazing interview with David Mitchell - thanks for sharing the link.

- Fenn

[K.]

Hi Fenn - Glad to be of a little service. It was a great interview, wasn't it? I have become a complete fan of the podcast in the weeks since.
At the risk of overestimating your interest, here's a little blog post I wrote about it (and the host, the amazing Harriet Gilbert). http://lasthouse.blogspot.com/2013/07...

[Briannasummer]

I just finished the book, and this thread had been very insightful and thought provoking. Concerning Cavendish's timeline, I feel as if its not present day. When Cavendish said that he hadn't run since the 70s, I think he was talking about 2070. If Luisa had lived a long life, say 80, she would have died at around 2030. This puts Cavendish at 40 years old at 2070, a reasonable age to be running. Also, there are two points in his story that make me think he lives so far in the future. When traveling, he says
"commuters, these hapless souls who enter the lottery of death twice daily on Britain's decrepit railways, packed the dirty train. Airplanes circled in holding patterns over over Heathrow, densely densely as gnats over a summer puddle"
This really does not sound like modern Britain to me. Later on, h even mentions the cloning happening in Korea.
"Ursula and I went punting below that quit bridge, where those Biotech Space Age cuboid now sit cloning humans for shady Koreans."
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned that part in this thread yet, it really stood out to me. (Unless someone has brought it up and I missed it)

[Adam]

Leo wrote: "@Sharon: Nice insights Sharon. I caught the same ideas, but did not think the use of time so clearly. I will have to read the book again. In fact, this is the sort of book that needs to be reread...."

I'm not sure of your nationalities but I thought I'd clear up any confusion about Timothy Cavendish being set in anything other than the very early 21st century. Obviously I can't be specific but I'd say before the smoking ban of 2006 (the cigar reference) and going off when the book was published I'd say it was set in the present (i.e. 2004). There are also lots of subtle clues that it is around this time period that I can't recall without re-reading it. For what it's worth the Timothy Cavendish part was the most enjoyable for me to read. It was laugh out loud funny in parts.

I haven't finished reading the comments here, so I'll hopefully be back with something a little more insightful next time!

[Cecily]

Briannasummer, are you joking?

As a Brit, "commuters, these hapless souls who enter the lottery of death twice daily on Britain's decrepit railways, packed the dirty train. Airplanes circled in holding patterns over over Heathrow, densely densely as gnats over a summer puddle" sounds very like Britain now, and indeed when the book was published. I reread it only this year, and I don't remember anything to indicate it was set nearly a hundred years hence; if that were the case, Mitchell would surely have included the odd bit of futuristic tech as a clue.

[Ted]

Just a comment about the movie, personal-like, I thought it was absolutely brilliant; perhaps even better than the book, which I rated a four, more like a 4 1/2 (if I ever read it a second time, it will go up to a five).

I am thankful that I'd read the book before seeing the movie. Off-hand I think most readers felt this was a book that would be a real challenge to make a decent movie out of, and it was. The Germans did a great job in my opinion, did not shrink away from the cutting from story to story, even intensified and magnified it, added a beautiful sound track, and changed the stories enough to offer some surprises which I appreciated.

[Gregsamsa]

I agree. I read the book when it came out but only just now saw the movie because I thought a responsible treatment would be impossible in just a few hours.

The movie is much more insistent on the reincarnation idea. I did not think the book demands this interpretation. I thought more in terms of "intertextuality." For us history is reduced to a story, a text, and I thought that was what Mitchell was pointing out when each history was "contained" in the next as a text. I thought that rather than being a literal clue to the next incarnation of the same soul, the comet birthmark was a motif linking the characters as a thread within his overall "everything is connected" philosophy.

[Cecily]

Gregsamsa wrote: "...The movie is much more insistent on the reincarnation idea...."

Yes, I agree. Partly that was because the same actors were used in different stories, but I think the rapid switching between stories (which worked well on screen) enhanced that impression.

[Joey]

I was thinking (could be wrong), but if Timothy Cavendish is reincarnated from Luisa, then everything that happened to her also happened to him. what if the fictional story of Luisa Rey was not simply a character formed from his imagination but his past life memories manifesting itself to what he perceives as his own imagination....food for thought. hope this makes sense....get back to me on what u think. thanks

[Benjamin]

Just something I noticed but...

Adam Ewing's story is presented as a journal, only intended for one person to read. His impact (as far as the story presented) is limited to freeing one person, the slave he helped escape.

Frobisher's story is presented through letters, intended for one other person. His impact is on a small group of people (the Ayers).

Luisa's story is presented as a novel, intended for a wide audience. Her actions prevent a nuclear disaster that would have impacted millions.

Cavendish's story becomes a movie, again for a wider audience. While his impact is not as big as Luisa's his actions still impact a wider community in the retirement home.

Sonmi leave a orison, which I understand to only ever be heard by the recorder, eventually left to collect dust in some vast archival system. She mainly impacts one or two others in the story we are given.

Lastly Zachry's story is an oral history, passed down to his family, a very personal section. His actions affect mainly himself and his wife. Passing in the story tp his family is, in essence, sharing the story wih himself.

Im still in the middle of reading the book, but this is based on what I've read so far, and what I saw on the movie, so feel free to correct me if I got something wrong. It just sruck me as unusual how the way the story is presented (and thus the impact it was intended to have) was mirrored by the impact the characters themselves had on those around them.

[Ellen]

Frances wrote: "Somewhere I heard that Mitchell said five of the six main characters were reincarnations of the same person. If the comet birthmark indicates this, then the one character who isn't a reincarnation ..."

Sorry I didn't read through all the responses to this post, so maybe somebody has already mentioned it, but it is fairly well understood in current metaphysical, conscious creation-type circles that reincarnation as a linear concept, i.e., you are born, you die, you incarnate into another body along the same timeline, is naive.

Rather, when you consider that a person's true existence is a vast, unlimited consciousness and each lifetime in an earthly body is merely one focus point of that vast consciousness or soul, and that consciousness (soul) itself exists beyond the space/time continuum, then of course, one soul, or if you wish, oversoul, can maintain focus upon a number of variations of itself in all times and all places at once.

Therefore, it would be no trick at all to exist as two or more people within the same time frame. So you can have past lives of course, but you can also have future lives that exist just as certainly you do now, and you can have parallel lives as well, freely experiencing their own lifetimes in the same time, and you are connected to each other through your Greater Self, Higher Self, Oversoul, whatever term you prefer to use.

Each personality is distinct and separate and endowed with free will, even the freedom to consider itself unattached to any other, but there will always be clues and little enticements made available during a person's lifetime that will cause wonder and instigate investigation, like the recurring birthmark, the dream connections, the music and art and film and writings that "speak to" each personality, inciting curiosity.

You could view the book as one Oversoul, through its many personalities and lifetimes, involves itself in an exploration of bigotry, the enslavement of one group by another, corrupt corporate or political structures, and so on, each personality attempting to overcome either his/her own oppression (Sonmi, for example) or to recognize and ultimately devote his/her life to overthrowing a corrupt and inhumane system (Adam Ewing).

[Teresa]

I am so glad to find this thread. I just finished the book and cannot stop thinking about it! I am still confused about how Frobisher fits into the story. All of the other reincarnated characters seem to go through many events that leave them determined to fight oppression, while Frobisher appears to be only out for himself. I don't understand why he commited suicide.
I am assuming his character exists to help build an alliance between Luisa and Sixsmith. Rufus trusts her partially because of her spiritual connection with Frobisher, and Frobisher's suicide leaves Sixsmith alone, makes him a loner. He is accustomed to that role, it has become a lifetime pattern, and it is easier for him to be the sole scientist opposing the nuclear company.
If others have found redeeming qualities in Frobisher that tie him to the rest of the souls, please let me know. I have enjoyed all of the comments. Thank you!

[[deleted user]]

I didn't want to read every post. To respond to the OP, I would say that the message the author is looking to send (this is my opinion, but I would point to the numerous mention's of Nietzsche to support it) is that the world is what we make it. The goal of a human being is the make the world what we wish it to be. I would argue that Nietzsche does not believe in souls; I could scrounge up support for this argument fairly easily, but I'll assume you trust me.

Considering people do not have souls or identity forms that are consistent; reincarnation is a bit different. Reincarnation could be fragmented overlapping. The main things you see connecting the characters is their drive to make the world what they wish it to be or to make with the world that which they wish to make. It doesn't have to be reincarnation in the literal sense in Christian or dualist idea.

That's how I felt at least; the author made a huge number of Nietzsche references, so I started feeling like it must have something to do with the story.

I saw the entire story as a piece playing with Nietzschean thought. It is a great work; I think it should definitely be read by anyone studying Nietzsche and maybe readers of this book would enjoy it more if they had read Nietzsche.

[Ted]

Preston wrote: "I didn't want to read every post. To respond to the OP, I would say that the message the author is looking to send (this is my opinion, but I would point to the numerous mention's of Nietzsche to s..."

Preston,

I was at one time (long ago) fairly familiar with most of Nietzsche's writings. I never had any thought as I read Cloud Atlas that there was anything Nietzschien about it.

I'm not doubting for a minute that you saw these connections, and was just wondering if you could point out a few of them. I'd be very interested, and think your comments about the story also very interesting.

[Daniel]

Now, about the Cavendish/Luisa question, and the apparent presence of a trio composed by soul/friend/foe, what if the reincarntion is Luisa's father? It´s a long shot, and something that just occurred to me (as Napier was his friend). Or what if there is a missing link that just didn't appear, is only implied? Who's the ally of Cavendish? It's not exactly clear to me.
And one more thing: the origin of all the messages (if you will) are clear. Letters published by sons, songs sent to friends, an interview before an execution...
Who exactly is the woman who wrote Luisa's story? Where did it come from?
I think there's a missing link at this point, something just under our noses.
One more thing: since it's more than explicitly suggested that time is cyclical, I am led to belive that humanity's cycle finishes after Zachry story. From this point on, history repeats itself, and we are condemned to repeat the same acts over and over, never able to break the destruction brought by the will of power, never evolving. Am I too pessimistic?

[Alex]

I think it's got a bit of redemption to it. Adam Ewing was optimistically trustworthy, only to be poisoned for his money. He's inherently good, as shown by him helping the slave, but it still doesn't exactly end up going well for him.

Frobisher, almost in reaction to this, was more selfish and less trusting, only to be consumed by his Cloud Atlas Sextet (I.e. his interwoven memories and foreshadows of other lives) which drove him to commit suicide.

Luisa Rey tried at redemption, and had a positive effect on millions, only to be constantly targeted for assassination.

Cavendish was a bit like Frobisher, jaded because of the previous attempt at redemption, only to end up trapped and punished anyway and ultimately helping his fellow captives escape and even going back into peril for Mr Meeks.

Sonmi was pushed down by 'the man' her whole life, and she ended up inspiring many others and making the biggest positive impact on slaves and the few remaining humans and basically becoming God for thousands (or however many humans were meant to be left on Earth). Sonmi arguably had the worst punishment, but I think the next chronological story shows this 'soul' learning from past mistakes at trying to be selfish as the result of being punished for good deeds.

Meronym is not the main character, and I think this is significant because it shows that this one reincarnated person has become a general positive force, and has finally become a decent person overall. She saved Zachry's sister despite being told not to and took Zachry with her. I think Zachry is the equivalent of Adam Ewing for a different soul. Meronym is a supporting character in another story, despite being the final character in the story we have been reading.

This is a complex book, and there are so many layers and sub-meanings that you could write a dissertation about it! I haven't even mentioned the religious stuff. I think it's important to not think of the reincarnation in sci-fi terms, this book is a lot more symbolic than it is literal.

[Alex]

Daniel wrote: "Now, about the Cavendish/Luisa question, and the apparent presence of a trio composed by soul/friend/foe, what if the reincarntion is Luisa's father? It´s a long shot, and something that just occur..."

The cyclical point you made is very interesting! I reckon it could be seen as Zachry being the start of the same cycle for a different soul, and if we were to read Zachry's Cloud Atlas we would have him as the Meronym character for yet another soul.

[William]

Frances wrote: "Somewhere I heard that Mitchell said five of the six main characters were reincarnations of the same person. If the comet birthmark indicates this, then the one character who isn't a reincarnation ..."

The first character with the tattoo is not a reincarnation, he is the zero. There are then five reincarnations to get the six stories.

[Tom]

I found this to be an enjoyable book, as well as the film.

More specifically from the film I viewed the reincarnation as a fight against persecution and/or stigma, whether it be against themselves or others.

Adam Ewing - He helped a black slave, persecuted for his skin colour.

Robert Frobisher - He struggled against the fear that his homosexuality would be revealed.

Luisa Rey - She was helping to stop a nuclear disaster, as a female reporter in the 1970's (something I assume was quite uncommon even for then).

Timothy Cavendish - He fought against being locked away due to his age.

Somni - She was a capitalist slave and fought against consumerism.

Zachary - He fought against his personal and emotional unwillingless to trust Meronym. Possibly due to his spiritual beliefs.

Also interesting to note that Zachary means 'And God Remembered' in Hebrew.

[Martin]

Frances wrote: "Somewhere I heard that Mitchell said five of the six main characters were reincarnations of the same person. If the comet birthmark indicates this, then the one character who isn't a reincarnation ..."

Reincarnation in not necessarily 1:1, for starters. Secondly, DM has made it clear he's using Buddhist conventions and principals as literary devices, so he has license to bend them as he sees fit.

[Matt]

Very quick question, we keep saying that Meronym had the birthmark in that story. at the end of the movie Zachry is finishing his story and they have a shot of the birthmark on the back of his head. any idea?

[Cecily]

Matt wrote: "Very quick question, we keep saying that Meronym had the birthmark in that story. at the end of the movie Zachry is finishing his story and they have a shot of the birthmark on the back of his head..."

Yes, that's correct, but I haven't figured out WHY the birthmark was given to a different character in the film. :(

[Martin]

The birthmark is the marker denoting the reincarnated being. I suppose it would have been very difficult to use a name badge: Bob, previously Sue, Robert before that...

Considering life on earth has existed for, what?, 2 billion years and that some of the lifetimes were pretty short, that's a lot of living.

By the bye, check out the research into likely reincarnations by Ian Stevenson and you'll sell a possible, if not likely, source for Mitchel.

by Ian Stevenson (no photo)

[Cecily]

Martin wrote: "The birthmark is the marker denoting the reincarnated being..."

I think most of us get that. The puzzle here is why the film-makers changed who was the final reincarnation.

[Martin]

Apologies, Cecily. I have no earthly idea.

[Jack]

Seen a lot of people commenting that there is a plot hole in the story as Luisa Rey and Cavendish are the same age. Get the theory that suicide could have split the soul but I'm not convinced.

When Cavendish is on the train he goes past a factory which produces clones which makes me think that Cavendish's story is not set in 2012 but actually a few decades into the future which would allow him to be come an old man after Luisa's death if it were thirty/fourty years into the future. I know the film says 2012 but could it be a misintepretation? Or am I missing something which definitely states the year in the book for Cavendish's ordeal :)

Massive fan of the book by the way, enjoyed reading through all of the interpretations and theories on various discussions here!

[Amber]

Jeb wrote: "@steven - i agree - this way it is a progression: murderous thief - troubled person who chooses to create rather than destroy (although he still has murderous urges) - truth seeker- freedom seeker ..."

I like this explanation. I really do. But I am so confused. I couldn't figure out the reincarnations in the book. In the film, I assumed that the characters were reincarnated when the actor remained the same...for example, Tom Hanks was awful Dr.Goose in the Ewing story, The predatory hotel clerk in the Frobisher story, the murdering gangster in the Cavendish story, the fearful scientists in the Luisa story and terribly frightened Zachary in the end. But, if that's the case, that soul doesn't grow much does it? Your explanation makes more sense if you are leaning toward a buddhist enlightenment take on reincarnation.

In the book, however, it was not clear to me. The importance of the birthmark was lost on me in the book and the film. All I could do with that birthmark is assume that those who bore it were apart of some circle of souls that kept reincarnating together, passing the birthmark around amongst themselves.

[Amber]

Anne wrote: "Anyone have any insight into Ayrs' dream where he hears the music he needs Frobisher to write down? He says the dream was terrifying: there was a grotesquely-lit underground cave where all the wome..."

I found this odd too. But there is a theory that time is not linear - only human perception of it is, and therefore, all things are happening all at once - in which case anyone could pick up on something that is happening in the "future" if it is actually a part of their experience? Which is to say that even if Frobisher is Somni, Ayr is apart of Frobisher's future Somni experience too, so he also has access to this information about this experience that seems to be in the future, but really isn't.

I don't know. I am confusing myself at this point.

[Martin]

Time is spatial, but that doesn't rule out the three times (past, present and future), if that makes sense.

[Patricia]

Great thread. I read Cloud Atlas a few months ago and enjoyed it, but finding this thread has made me appreciate the book more. The reincarnation theme is obvious, but now I recognize others, for example the evolution of the soul that Steven describes in #11 and role of media that Mark54 pointed out in #21.

Thank you everyone, you fascinating ideas and insights are sending me back to re-read.

[Kressel]

Dan wrote: "The movie handling of re-incarnation is sometimes a little more strait forward but still confusing. The Tom Hanks character may be the key. His persona goes from the evil Dr. Henry Goose to Zachary with only slight improvements in character along his journey. Is the persona the re-incarnation of the man here? I think that is what the directors on the movie would like us to believe. Does the birthmark signify something differently than the reincarnation of the protagonist in the prior story? Most definitely."

I thought the birthmark thing was hokey in the book, but the roles of the actors in the movie presented other issues, particularly with Tom Hanks' characters. Now I can see the murderous Dr. Henry Goose and the murderous Dermot Hoggins as the same soul, and I can see Isaac Sachs and Zachry as the same because they both struggled with cowardice and overcame it. But all four as the same soul? It just doesn't make sense to me.

So I'll take the message about fighting oppression and leave all the reincarnation stuff aside.

[James]

Frances wrote: "Somewhere I heard that Mitchell said five of the six main characters were reincarnations of the same person. If the comet birthmark indicates this, then the one character who isn't a reincarnation ..."
If you read more of Mitchell's works, it's revealed that he counts Meronym as one of the five. The sixth is a character that appears in his book, Ghostwritten (his first novel), by the name of Kate Forbes. She's from the same time period as Timothy Cavendish, but roughly thirty years younger (mid-30s).

[Ben]

To begin sorry for my bad english. (i speak about the book not film)
What i understand or want believe:
- the birthmark, a comet, is the Star of Bethlehem, who have the birthmark are the Christ reincarnate.
- georgie is the (d)evil, sometime he is in character's body (Dr. Goose, bill)or Judas in past(remember what Zachry have heard)sometime he don't arrived enter(Zachry).
- the autor has an optimistic message in Zachry's story, even if the humanity civilization in futur tumble. One man, Zachry choose to fight the evil and win.
- all actions of the birthmarks possessor conduct finaly to the victory of humanity against the evil.
-the timeline in the book are the true timeline. When Zachry win, the story of all characters change and win against evil...to finally Erwing change his life, the circle is now complete.
-** Cavendish can't be Luisa reincarnation? the answer i like belive: remember when the first chapter of Luisa end, we think that she is died, even bill,even Luisa herself think that. We know when heroes dream they escape to the timeline, and can see futur or past. soul can travel through time? Perhaps she reincarn when she was between life and die, and her soul return in her body and her time after.

[Nicole]

I love and have enjoyed reading all the comments regarding the book and movie. I love hearing the many interpretations and perceptions. I haven't been able to get the book yet. Waiting on my library to order it, but I have watched the movie at least a hundred times. Each time I'm seeing something new and looking at it from a different angle. I have also heard of the differences between the book and movie such as the birthmark being on meronym and not zachry. Seems like a small detail but I wish the movie wouldn't have changed that. Anyway, The thing I have been pondering for a while now and wanted some feedback on was the birthmarks. Please keep in mind that I am basing my thoughts and interpretations off of the movie as I have not yet been able to read the book. It struck me that the placement of the birthmark on each individual is significant and holds meaning. Here are my thoughts so far, though they are nowhere near complete... still chewing the ideas around.

For Adam Ewing, the birthmark is on his chest near his heart. And being that his struggle is largely making friends with a person society says he shouldn't, this is fitting. He has to struggle to love... (This is one of the ones I'm still chewing around, not quite sure if this fits exactly. )
Then we have Robert frobisher. His mark is on his back close to his spine, which made me think of the phrase spineless, or cowardly. His struggle to me is largely based around courage. Developing a backbone. In the movie he says that suicide is not a cowardly act, it takes tremendous courage.
Louisa Rey is another one that I'm struggling with narrowing down what her mark represents... I want to say integrity and have been trying to look up what the shoulder or collarbone area represents in mythology or in general. Her mark is located on her shoulder right at her collarbone in the movie.
Timothy Cavendish has the mark on his leg. On the calf. This made me think of the phrase standing up for oneself or others. In the movie it doesn't seem like he does this very much. Either standing up for himself or others. His struggle is to finally do this in standing up for himself and the others in the nursing home in breaking free. Also when returning to the girlfriend that he was too embarrassed to when he was younger... from what I understand though, this another thing that is different from the book. Either way, I know there is a way that this means something in this context. Standing up for himself.
Then we have Somni. This is the character that started me thinking the whole meaningful birthmark thing. Her birthmark is on her throat. And her thing to overcome and do is to speak out, speak the truth. It is her words that are most influential. Maybe that's the key with the others... As I said I'm still chewing all this around. And then zachry (in the movie) his struggle is mostly in his mind. with Ole georgie. Or if looking at this from the book, through Meronym, it is her thoughts and wisdom that is most important...? All of this is still fresh... kind of like a brainstorm rough draft. Had to share though cause I would love to hear what others think of this, or what they would say it means.
The progression might mean something too...
Adam- Heart/chest
Frobisher- Spine/back
Louisa Rey- Shoulder/collarbone
Cavendish- Calf/leg
Somni-Throat/Neck
Zachry/Meronym- Head


I know this is significant and means something... I'm still piecing it together though. Very interesting regardless. Seems to cover the most symbolic areas of the body... and how they pertain to each character and their struggles and/or missions... Please someone let me know what they think!! I feel like others could really expound on this. Thanks guys.

[Ellen]

Pretty nice observations, Nicole. I hadn't made those connections myself, but I think you are onto something.

Your listing of the places where the birthmark appears makes a lot of sense in terms of the chakras. If you read Eastern Body, Western Mind by Anodea Judith, you'll see how weaknesses in certain chakras create difficulties in functioning in physical life. For instance, a weakness in the root chakra (Cavendish/leg) often indicates flightiness, ungroundedness, phobias, and a tendency to live in the head and avoid what is considered the unpleasantness of physical life, including developing intimate relationships with others. Cavendish exhibits all these behaviors, and his character arc in the movie shows evolution (as does all the others). In the end he triumphs and is reunited with his former love.

Each character does go through a personal flowering concerning their own particular lifetime issues, even if not always quite as satisfying in the book as they do in the movie.

Also, the birthmark in the book shows up always in the same place -- on the collarbone. I would guess that would place it at the throat chakra, which indicates communication, creativity, and, when strong, the ability to express one's truth with integrity. This definitely expresses the development of each character in the book, as each one does discover not only the big "Truths" about their worlds, but also their personal truths and how to express them.

[Sasha]

As far as the book goes:
Five of the six protagonists are reincarnations: Although Ewing's birthmark isn't ever confirmed (that I can remember) Meronym's is. Meronym is not the protagonist/voice of the last/middle story, Zachry is. Thus, the incarnations go as:
Ewing -> Frobisher -> Rey & Cavendish -> Somni -> Meronym.

All of these characters are the same soul. Each reads a work by or based off of the previous incarnation, often remembering pieces of it, each has the same birthmark in the same location, each calls forward or calls back to an event in the soul's cycle at least once. Ex: Frobisher considers killing Arys while he sleeps and recounts it reminded him of something yet to occur. Rey is physically incapable of holding a gun.

Rey and Cavendish are actually the same age, their stories just take place at different times. Rey's in the 70's, when she's in her 20's, and Cavendish's in 2012~ when he's in his 60's. Because they're the same age it's reasonable to assume that: They are the same soul, just fragmented, which leads to two different people and two different stories.

The Moiri tribe is very important to the reincarnation aspect of the story, which is why Mitchell spent a lot of time going over them first thing. As Zachry's tale clarifies, the Moiri believe that murder breaks the reincarnation cycle. And while Frobisher didn't murder anyone, he did kill himself, resulting in a fragmentation of his soul and two incarnates: Rey and Cavendish. The soul heals or reconvenes for Somni's lifetime. Meronym kills Kona tribesmen to save Zachry (and his companions), thus ending the reincarnation cycle of the soul.

Some side characters make comments or say things that allude to them having previous lives, and adventures with the "main soul" as well. This, in my opinion, is clearly up to interpretation. You can interpret it as the side characters having souls that are repeatedly reincarnated throughout the story as well, OR you could just attribute them to the "cloud atlas", the manifests and constants of human nature that always change.

As far as the movie goes, it gets more complicated. Incarnations are changed (see: Zachry's story), people addressing reincarnation is completely ignored outside of Frobisher's story (in the book each short story has the incarnation voice their opinions on reincarnation or confront the idea of reincarnation), and the re-using of actors to emphasize constants in humanity made it so that people thought "same actor = same soul", which is not the case. At least, not in the book.

[mkfs]

Sasha wrote: "the Moiri believe that murder breaks the reincarnation cycle. And while Frobisher didn't murder anyone, he did kill himself, resulting in a fragmentation of his soul and two incarnates: Rey and Cavendish. The soul heals or reconvenes for Somni's lifetime. "

That's a connection I hadn't made when reading the book. I had thought the Rey/Cavendish split was an oversight. This makes a lot more sense.

[Martin]

Excellent Sasha.

[Canerataseven]

Hello people,

I see a lot of people are confused about Cavendish & Luisa Rey times are overlapping and coming up with false theories about "soul fragmentation" or "oversight". Truth is simplier.

The key to Cavendish & Luisia Rey issue is in another David mitchell book: "Ghostwritten"

In that book, it is clearly stated that in Cavendish's time, another character (named Katy Forbes) has the birthmark. So, Cavendish is the odd one out, without the birthmark. Mitchell himself clearly said one of the main characters in Cloud Atlas is not the reincarnation of the same soul, and reading Ghostwritten clearly shows it's Cavendish.

Also note, Ghostwritten was written BEFORE Cloud Atlas, and both Cavendish and Luisa Rey makes appearences in it. Shows the genius of Mitchell imho.

[Sasha]

Except that Zachary is the narrator of his story and doesn't have a birthmark, Meronym does. Mitchell stated each narrator except one is a reincarnation. Which makes Zachry the odd one out. Same birthmark = same soul, Cavendish has to be a reincarnation, since he mentions having a birthmark.

And even if your theory is true you have another character with a birthmark who exists on Lusia's timeline, which would require an oversight or fragmentation.

How would having to read one of Mitchell's previous books to understand the Cavendish/Rey timeline be simpler then them just being fragments? Especially with such a heavy focus on the Moiri tribe's views of reincarnation and murder and them being the same age?

[Martin]

Sasha - I just want to commend you for your wonderful sleuthing on the reincarnation device Mitchell obviously is using in Cloud Atlas, especially the Maori angle. As an aspiring Buddhist, I was familiar with Mitchel's use of reincarnation as a literary device in other of his works. But that usage aligns more closely with Buddhist notions and use of the star birthmark points toward the work of Ian Stevenson and the database of suspected rebirths/reincarnations that he established.

Until your posts, which fits the pieces of the puzzle together quite nicely, I was unaware of the Maori tradition. Nice work.

[Canerataseven]

Sasha wrote: "Except that Zachary is the narrator of his story and doesn't have a birthmark, Meronym does. Mitchell stated each narrator except one is a reincarnation. Which makes Zachry the odd one out. Same bi..."

Mine is not a theory, it's simple fact. Go read Ghostwritten and you will see. But i guess you like your "theory" too much by now, you will just decide to not hear the truth :)

It's simple really from Frobisher > Luisa Ray > Kathy Forbes. Cavendish has no birthmark no fragment or nothing.

[Sasha]

Again, Zachry doesn't have a birthmark, Meronym does, which means he's the only protagonist who isn't a reincarnation. Cavendish also mentions having a birthmark.
Cavendish's entire storyline is pointless if he isn't one of the six reincarnations. And if he isn't Mitchell wouldn't've included him because his PoV would be a waste of time. It makes far more sense for someone who has two extensive chapters in the book, has a birthmark, and makes remarks that link to other reincarnations to be a reincarnation over a character from another one of Mitchell's books that serves neither as a sequel, prequel, or companion.