116 replies to this topic

[Crown]

ONLY READ IF YOU FINISHED THE BOOK, SPOILERS BELOW

Cloud Atlas, the story of Adam Ewing, Robert Frobisher, Luisa Rey, Timothy Cavendish, Sonmi~451 and Zachry.

I started this thread because I discovered there was none, and I feel the urge to discuss this  masterpiece (I loved it). I finished the book last night, and it was satisfying yet I couldn't stop wondering about the connections between the stories.

They are endless, in my mind. I for one, think that the stuff going down at Swanneke B and Sea Board Corp caused the Fall (eventhough Luisa kinda prevented it). I also noticed the similarities between the story of the Maori and Moriori and the story of Zachry's Valleysman and the Kona. Then we got Luisa sighting the Prophetess, and there's more much more.

Especially the Maori/Moriori-Valleysman/Kona similiary got me thinking because of Nietzche's 'the world is a gramophone, it keeps repeating itself' story.

Discuss.

[Mosi Wanostracht]

I love this book - there is so much to it!

I didn't really like Adam Ewing, so it started off slow for me - but I adore Frobisher, Cavendish and Sonmi.

David Mitchell's imagination is breathtaking.

[Crown]

Mosi Wanostracht, on 20 August 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

I love this book - there is so much to it!

I didn't really like Adam Ewing, so it started off slow for me - but I adore Frobisher, Cavendish and Sonmi.

David Mitchell's imagination is breathtaking.

I didn't really like Adam Ewing's story myself, but that last two pages were brilliant. His explanation of the history and the natural order of this world was brilliant.

I just remembered something else, Bill Smokes asks Luisa Rey if she always gets so -insert word I can't remember here- before she dies. To which I thought, who the hell was Bill Smokes in his previous life? Old Georgie (same actor, for the movie)?

[mythsandstuff]

Crown, did it make you a little euphoric as the pieces started falling together in the second half, when you could see the bigger picture? It did for me, and I always hope for that experience for others - it's so rare for a book to provoke that, and for a book that is in large part about how we hurt each other to leave me feeling euphoric and that everything's gonna be OK (which was my thought upon finishing it) is not something I've ever experienced, before or since.

As far as connections, there's also the Soylent Green reference in Cavendish's story, which reappears in the foam in the Son-mi story.

I also love the sextet as a metaphor for the story as a whole.

[Mosi Wanostracht]

I think the movie will actually make some things a lot clearer for  me - like who is reincarnated into whom.  Whilst reading I thought the main characters were reincarnations of each other because of the birth mark, but I think it's more complex than that now!

[mythsandstuff]

Mosi Wanostracht, on 20 August 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

I think the movie will actually make some things a lot clearer for  me - like who is reincarnated into whom.  Whilst reading I thought the main characters were reincarnations of each other because of the birth mark, but I think it's more complex than that now!

The thing that sucks about the movie is that we'll be stuck with their interpretation - I wish they were using completely different actors in each story, just to have the opportunity to figure it out for myself.

[Mosi Wanostracht]

Has David Mitchell not been involved with the film, then?  I assumed they had gone to him for clarification on a few points.

As an aside, Sonmi's world in the film looks amazing.  Her workplace looks almost exactly how I imagined it when reading.

[mythsandstuff]

Mosi Wanostracht, on 20 August 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

Has David Mitchell not been involved with the film, then?  I assumed they had gone to him for clarification on a few points.

As an aside, Sonmi's world in the film looks amazing.  Her workplace looks almost exactly how I imagined it when reading.

If Mitchell is involved, I'm even more irked - he ought not be involved in telling me how to read the book, beyond having written it, and I would hope he would resist any efforts to simplify or dumb it down for a moviegoing audience.

[Crown]

mythsandstuff, on 20 August 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

Crown, did it make you a little euphoric as the pieces started falling together in the second half, when you could see the bigger picture? It did for me, and I always hope for that experience for others - it's so rare for a book to provoke that, and for a book that is in large part about how we hurt each other to leave me feeling euphoric and that everything's gonna be OK (which was my thought upon finishing it) is not something I've ever experienced, before or since.

As far as connections, there's also the Soylent Green reference in Cavendish's story, which reappears in the foam in the Son-mi story.

I also love the sextet as a metaphor for the story as a whole.

It kinda did. While reading the first half of the book I had this 'where the hell is this going to?'-feeling. It was fun to see to see Frobisher discovering Ewing's journal, Luisa Frobisher's letters, Cavendish Luisa's book, Sonmi Cavendish's movie, and Zachry Sonmi's orison. But fun, that was all, not something revolutionary (in literary terms), more gimmicky (in my opinion) as explained by Mitchell himself:

“Spent the fortnight gone in the music room reworking my
year's fragments into a 'sextet for overlapping soloists': piano,
clarinet, 'cello, flute, oboe, and violin, each in its own language
of key, scale, and color. In the first set, each solo is interrupted
by its successor; in the second, each interruption is
recontinued, in order. Revolutionary or gimmicky? Shan't
know until it's finished, and by then it'll be too late.”

But then the second of the story started, and I couldn't put the book down. The connections I made myself (Swanneke B-the Fall, Maori/Moriori-Valleysman/Kona) and the deja-vu events (Propethess, car collision) were brilliant. It wasn't a simple gimmick, it was revolutionary. Also the way some stories (the past) had impact on the others (the future) was great, for example Cavendish movie for Sonmi (the Outdoor) and Sonmi's orison for Zachry. All this tiny things combined make this such a wonderful book. I love it.

Edited by Crown, 20 August 2012 - 05:58 AM.

[wolverine]

How accessible is this book?

[Crown]

wolverine, on 20 August 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

How accessible is this book?

I wouldn't consider it very accessible, you seriously need to keep reading (it can get frustrating at times, mid-sentence stopped stories for example). But in the end it all pays off, and you will find this one of the best reads in your life!

Edited by Crown, 20 August 2012 - 03:18 PM.

[mythsandstuff]

It's a frustrating read for the first half, but deliberately so - the structure is designed to cut off each story at the point where you really get into it. But there's a method to the madness, and the payoff is huge.
In terms of language and style, I'd say it's very accessible. I really like Mitchell's prose - it's playful, and you can tell he loves words, but it's about wit, rather than showing off (like, say, Mieville). Mitchell wants you to nod, to smile, to laugh, but I get the impression he could care less about whether you're impressed with his stylistic choices. The structural and narrative choices are where he blows his wad, if you'll excuse the vugarity.

[Crown]

mythsandstuff, on 20 August 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

It's a frustrating read for the first half, but deliberately so - the structure is designed to cut off each story at the point where you really get into it. But there's a method to the madness, and the payoff is huge.
In terms of language and style, I'd say it's very accessible. I really like Mitchell's prose - it's playful, and you can tell he loves words, but it's about wit, rather than showing off (like, say, Mieville). Mitchell wants you to nod, to smile, to laugh, but I get the impression he could care less about whether you're impressed with his stylistic choices. The structural and narrative choices are where he blows his wad, if you'll excuse the vugarity.

That's a brilliant explanation, could've have said it any better. Exactly how I felt and still feel about the book.

[RedEyedGhost]

mythsandstuff, on 20 August 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

The thing that sucks about the movie is that we'll be stuck with their interpretation - I wish they were using completely different actors in each story, just to have the opportunity to figure it out for myself.

I couldn't agree with this more.  There's no need for them to use the same actors in the different time periods.

wolverine, on 20 August 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

How accessible is this book?

Very.  Although the first section can be difficult because of the way Mitchell immerses you into the language of the 1850's.  It can definitely be annoying when the stories cut off mid-sentence, but when you start rolling back into the stories it's a fantastic ride.

[Crown]

RedEyedGhost, on 20 August 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

I couldn't agree with this more.  There's no need for them to use the same actors in the different time periods.

I agree, it makes no sense (in my eyes) that Henry Goose, Isaac Sachs, Dermot Hoggins and Zachry are the same person...

[Mosi Wanostracht]

Crown, on 21 August 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

I agree, it makes no sense (in my eyes) that Henry Goose, Isaac Sachs, Dermot Hoggins and Zachry are the same person...

But why would they arbitarily decide to do that if it was not the author's intention?

Like I said above, I assumed the six main characters were the same person because of the birthmark.  It never occurred to me that they would be different people in each other's lives.  But what if that was what David Mitchell intended all along?

[Crown]

Mosi Wanostracht, on 21 August 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

But why would they arbitarily decide to do that if it was not the author's intention?

Like I said above, I assumed the six main characters were the same person because of the birthmark.  It never occurred to me that they would be different people in each other's lives.  But what if that was what David Mitchell intended all along?

But David Mitchell said that the six main characters were the same person...

[Mosi Wanostracht]

Oh - so I was right?

In that case I have no idea what the film is doing!

[Crown]

Mosi Wanostracht, on 21 August 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

Oh - so I was right?

In that case I have no idea what the film is doing!

Here: 'All of the [leading] characters are reincarnations of the same soul ... identified by a birthmark. ... The "cloud" refers to the ever-changing manifestations of the "atlas", which is the fixed human nature. ... The book's theme is predacity ... individuals prey on individuals, groups on groups, nations on nations.'

It doesn't make sense that Adam Ewing is the same person as Hae-Joo-Im in the film if Sonmi is Ewing's reincarnation (for example)...

Edited by Crown, 21 August 2012 - 08:35 AM.

[Mosi Wanostracht]

Agreed.

I guess this must have either been approved by Mitchell or he just gave them the go-ahead to do what they like, because it's changing the fundamentals of the story.