Reincarnation and plot-holes?

[Robert]

What if the birthmark did not represent the path of a single soul? We see the main characters reincarnate and interact across time, and in each timeframe one of souls comes to a critical point in their their journey which is signified by the birthmark. If that were the case, it would eliminate the assumed plot holes and any need for fiction vs. reality.

[Gwen]

Trace wrote... "My thought is that the Luisa Rey book is non fiction disguised as fiction."

That is my belief as well, that the Luisa Rey portion was as real as the others, but appeared recorded as a work of fiction in the subsequent section. In a sense, media brings the previous section to the next... a journal, music, letters, a fiction book, a movie, a recording...

[G]

I want to know y'all's theory on where Meronym is from. She points to a spot of sea on a world map and states that her home was on older maps but not on the ones right before the Fall.

Any ideas?

Sunken islands?

[Kathryn]

Gosh Joaquin, that's beautifully said.I wish I had said that.

[James]

Greg wrote: "I want to know y'all's theory on where Meronym is from. She points to a spot of sea on a world map and states that her home was on older maps but not on the ones right before the Fall.

Any ideas?..."

It's at least implied in The Bone Clocks that Meronym's people came from Greenland...or Iceland

[Doofstar]

Dan wrote: "The search for understanding of the Timothy Cavendish timeline actually led me to this site. There are a lot of great observations here, but I think that the way the birthmarks are depicted in the ..."

For me the most significant thing about this story is the analogy to the way we exploit animals and how this mentality will inevitably lead to ultimate self destruction.

"We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form."
William Ralph Inge

[Lia]

Everyone keeps saying that there is no real indication of when Timothy Cavendish's story takes place, but it's not true. He mentions going to see Mary Poppins in the theater as a child, and his TV breaking after George W Bush won the election. Mary Poppins came out in 1963 so he couldn't have been born later than the late 50's, which would make him around Louisa's age in 1975. This is what confuses me.

[Jamie]

Didn't even notice the Bone Clocks/Slade House connections until reading some comments here. That gives me a lot to think about. . .

[Jorinde]

Doofstar wrote: "Dan wrote: "The search for understanding of the Timothy Cavendish timeline actually led me to this site. There are a lot of great observations here, but I think that the way the birthmarks are depi..."

About the overlap of Cavendish and Louisa, to be honest I've never really seen Cavendish as one of the reïncarnations. The main two arguments for that being so are that Mitchell himself said at least 5 of the 6 main characters were reincarnations of each other and that Cavendish's segment would otherwise hold no purpose.

As for the first argument, I never really saw Zachary as the main character in his segment, merely a framing device, just as Ewing's segment was technically a novel that has been fully edited by his son. Protagonist/main character doesn't neccessarily mean POV-character. Zachary's segment to me was for a large part also about how comforting religion can be, and how angry and defensive people can get if you threaten their reality. In this way Zachary was a very useful framing device. When Meronym enters the picture and threatens Zachary's status quo he gets defensive and retaliatory and when she tells him of Sonmi's true identity his mind - in the form of Old Georgie - starts telling him to kill her. In this way I always saw it as an interesting look into how the theme of the truth one can see in especially Luisa's narative affects others. Yet the plot of Zachary's segment is focused almost solely on Meronym's actions - the story starts when she arrives, she according to Old Georgie is the reason the Kona invade, she saves Zachary once he's captured, etc. - and in reality though she isn't the POV-character is still very much the main character.
This would leave in my view Cavendish as the one main character who may or may not be an incarnation.

As for the idea that Cavendish's segment would then be a waste of space, I don't see why that would be the case. The book has many other themes aside from reincarnation, and Cavendish's story plays heavily into themes of truth and the importance of that - in how his affair with his brother's wife landed him in the ghastly ordeal in the first place -, imprisonment/slavery and the strong preying on the weak and in general Cavendish's segment is also almost a breath of fresh air wherein Mitchell ridicules his own theme of reincarnation, acknowledges that Luisa's story is one that's been done many times before and still coyly compliments himself and his writing style. Aside from that it's also arguably the story with the lowest stakes - as a kid I had a book with the same plot called Supergranny - and the story that focuses the most on the individual making it quite important to the well-rounded feeling Cloud Atlas gives.