Maciek's Reviews > Cloud Atlas

Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
2969647
Hey readers...



Look at the book you're reading...



...now back to me.



Now back at the book you're reading...



...now back at me.



Sadly, that book was (probably) not written by me. But if you'd check out my book, Cloud Atlas, you'd know that I could have written it if I just wanted to. Look back at the book...



...and now back up. Who's that?



That's me, the author of Cloud Atlas, which is the book you could have been reading. What's in your hand?



It's Cloud Atlas, which is a historical novel about a pacific voyage all the way back in the 1800's. Back at me.



Now back at Cloud Atlas. Look, it's now a thriller.



And look again. Cloud Atlas is now science fiction.



Anything is possible when a book contains several stories inside...



...and I am the author.



Cloud Atlas is arguably David Mitchell's (all right, I'll stop pretending - that's him in the pictures) most famous novel - and if it isn't, it certailnly will be after the Wachowskis will turn it into a big budged movie - the trailer is not that bad looking. The novel itself is critically acclaimed - it won the British Book Awards Literary Fiction Award, and was shortlisted for the Booker Prize and even nominated for two of the prestigious awards given to works of science fiction - the Nebula and Arthur C. Clarke award.

So what should we, the readers, make of Cloud Atlas? By now, probably everyone interested in reading it has heard that it's composed of six different storylines, all of which interact with each other in some way. The single most impressive thing about the novel is the fact that the author adapts a unique narrative voice for each of these sections, making Cloud Atlas a feat of literary ventriloquism. The six storylines are also different in structure, setting and timelines.

The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing opens the novel: set around 1850, the journal is a first person account of a south Pacific journey of the naive Adam Ewing, who finds himself ashore on the Chattam Islands near New Zealand. He falls sick, and seeks help from a suspicious doctor who looks at his money with hungry eyes, and also learns a bit of the native history: the enslavement of the Moriori by the Maori.

Letters from Zedelghem is the next sequence, and as the title suggests it's epistolary. The titular letters are written by Robert Frobisher to Rufus Sixmith. Frobisher is a completely broke English musician who buys his daily bread by being a hired hand for a Belgian composer - Ayrs. Despite the implications that Sixmith is his lover, Frobisher starts an affair with Ayr's wife and it does not help that Ayrs also has a young daughter.

Half-Lives: The First Luisa Rey Mystery is the next section which tells the tale of Louisa Rey, a journalist who follows the lead that some nuclear plants are unsafe and can blow up the world: of course there are people who do not wish for this information to be made public. Dressed up as a thriller, it is definitely the most fast paced section of the novel and does a convincig job at passing as a grocery store rack paperback novel.

The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish is probably my favorite section: 65 year old Timothy Cavendish is a vanity publisher who gets himself into trouble with one of his clients (who happens to be a gangster) and has to lay low for a while; His brother arranges a safe place for him to go to. Only when he arrives he discovers that the hideaway is a nursing home; Cavendish is an extremely likeable old codger and lots of hilarity ensues as he attempts to break free. It gets downhill from here.

An Orison of Sonmi~451 is the least inspired section: a derivative dystopian fare, totally by the book. Overused dystopian tropes abound: Far future, immensely opressive totalitarian society, corporate overlords, genetically engingered slaves (cannibalism!), neologisms and simple spelling changes such as "xcitement, xpendable, xtra". etc. To top the cake it is set in futuristic Korea, complete with "the Beloved Chairman" who is in control of All Things. Not very, um, subtle, you know.

Sloosha's Crossin' an' Ev'rythin' After or Trainspotting in Space continues with the science fiction theme, and is set in post-apocalyptic Hawaii. Humanity has been almost completely wiped out during "The Fall". Zachry, the protagonist, is an old man recounting his teenage years, when he met Meronym, a member of a former advanced civilization. The section overuses apostrophes to an almost ridiculous extent, making me regret ever complaining about the simplicity of spelling changes in the Somni section. The style hangs over the content unmercifully, like a sharp sword, ready to drop at any moment to cut your reading enjoyment - and does exactly that, all the time.

After Slosha we return to the preceding stories yet again, this time in the reverse order, going back in time: Beginning with futuristic tale of Somni and ending with the concluding entries of the journal of Adam Ewing, in the 1850's.

So what is the big deal? The structure. On the back cover is Michael Chabon's appraisal of the novel as "series of nested dolls or Chinese boxes, a puzzle-book" and as the Wachowski's boldly emphasize in all caps in the trailer for the upcoming film, "EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED". However, I found these connections to be sketchy at best: For example, Ewing's journal is conveniently found by Frobisher at a bookshelf of his Belgian employer; Rufus Sixmith, the addressee of Frobisher's letters just happens to be a whistleblower collaborating with Louisa Rey; Louisa Rey's story is a manuscript that Cavendish is offered for publication; Cavendish's goofy adventure is a Disney romp watched by Somni in the far future, and Somni herself is a goddess worshipped by Zachry, who knows her story from a futuristic recording device. There are further attempts to stitch these stories together - a recurring birthmark, one character seemingly remembering a piece of music from another time, the recurrence of the number six - six stories, a character named...Sixmith who is...66 years old, etc. If the "nested dolls" analogy passed you by, the author has Isaac Sachs, an engineer (how appropriate!) explain the magic:

"“One model of time: an infinite matryoshka doll of painted moments, each ‘shell’ (the present) encased inside a nest of ‘shells’ (previous presents) I call the actual past but which we perceive as the virtual past. The doll of ‘now’ likewise encases a nest of presents yet to be, which I call the actual future but which we perceive as the virtual future.”"

But that is not all. Frobisher's musical masterpiece to be is called The Cloud Atlas Sextet, which he describes as:

"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."

...which is obviously how Cloud Atlas, the novel, is structured. It seems to me as if the author did not trust his readers and had to spell out his game in fear of being misunderstood, or worse: the trick going unnoticed. He also seems to see critics coming, and in the next sentence Frobisher thinks about his work: "Revolutionary or gimmicky? Shan't know until it's finished, and by then it'll be too late.”" The concept is laid out for the reader in its entirety at one moment: (view spoiler). Sometimes it's done in an almost humorous way: Timothy Cavendish mutters that "Soylent Green is people", and that some geeks must be "Cloning humans for shady Koreans" - which is exactly what happens in the Somni section.

Revolutionary or Gimmicky? For this jury Cloud Atlas does not have what it takes to be revolutionary, meaning something...well, revolutionary. The structure of the novel appears to be complex at the first glance, but during actual reading shows itself as not overly complex, and the author makes sure that the reader will understand it. The stories themselves are not strong enough to stand on their own: the Louisa Rey mystery is intentionally bland, but the Orison of Somni 451 is formulaic to the bone, where all characters are reduced to familiar stereotypes: The tyranical Big Brother regime and the opressed sentient beings who should not be capable of complex thought but are, which dates back to Yevgeny Zamyatin's brillian novel We, which has been written in...1921, going through more famous examples - Brave New World, 1984, movies such as the original Planet of the Apes, THX1138, etc etc etc. To give the author credit the dystopian formula has been firmly estabilished (and exploited - currently especially on the young adult market) and it's quite difficult (if not downright impossible) to come up with any innovations: especially if there's a set limit on the lenght of the piece which hardly allows for any worldbuilding, forcing the author to work with the barest minimum.

The recurring theme ofCloud Atlas is enslavement and exploitation of human beings. Ewing is exposed to enslavement of one tribe by another and is forced to decide the fate of a person; penniless Frobisher is forced to leave England for Belgium, where he is drawn into a net cast by an aging composer, who wants to exploit his talent; Louisa Rey is fighting the capitalist ubermench who do not care about the dangers of a nuclear reactor. Tinmothy Cavendish has to escape from dangerous people and literally becomes enslaved in a home for the elderly; Sonmi is a genetically enginereed fabricant who was made to be used. Throughout the ages, the weaker are controlled, abused and exploited by the stronger, who want even more riches and strenght.

is it a new topic? No. Does Cloud Atlas offer a new look at it? alas, the answer also has to be no. The book opposes the notion of survival of the fittest, where "the weak are the meat that the strong eat" - and this is obviously wrong. But in the year 2004 (when it was published) did we not know that already? The dangers of capitalism and the money-oriented western civilization, its contemporary face being the Louisa Rey sections and the gloomy vision of the future shown in the Orison of Somni; the post-colonial white guilt for which the vessel is the character of Adam Ewing. Adam Ewing seems to exist to only espouse this notion; after being rescued by a Noble Savage he is told about the bloodthirst of the White Race by the Doctor (who is the Evil character since this is how he was estabilished to be). The morality play hits home and Ewing decides that the way the world is is Wrong and there is worth in striving for a seemingly impossible Change where everyone is Free. This storyline is not bad by default, but it is hardly original and there is hardly any place for ambiguity; I was surprised at the comparisons with Benito Cereno, which is probably my favorite work by Melville (along with the brilliant Bartleby, the Scrivener - which is also about individualism and freedom, but in a completely different manner). The genius of Melville's work lies in its ambiguity: it has been praised and criticized because of it, as various readers read it either as a racist work in support of slavery, while other readers read it as an anti-slavery text in support of abolition. There is little if any of this in Adam Ewing's journal; of course it's wrong to own another human being as property, and most of the humanity came to agree on this...after we stole land from one another and replaced their people with ours, colonized and governed them against their will and exploited them in slave labor. Melville's work was written in 1856, when abolition was a controversial (and dangerous) issue; even though Adam Ewing's journal is set in that time period, we can't forget that it was created in the 2000's. There is not enough originality or exceptionality to it, and solely by attempting to stress the human freedom it borders dangerously on the banal repetition of something done earlier and better.

The author is at his best in the narratives of Frobisher and Cavendish, where he handles two drastically different characters with skill and verve. Both are Englishmen, though of different times and of different age and profession: Frobisher is young, cynical, cunning, brash and unapologetic; Cavendish is elderly, sheepish, slow and silly. It is in these two narratives where the author's talent really shines; he writes with panache and flamboyance, and his whimsical humor is contrasted with rawness and emotion. Frobisher's egoism and frustration are off-putting, and yet the reader cannot help but feel some sympathy for his character and wish him good in creating the work of his life; Cavendish's geriatric adventure is surprisingly rollicking and full of charm. It is their stories which work the best in this book, and are the most affecting and memorable.

On the whole, Cloud Atlas reads more as an exercise in trying to write stories in different genres and styles, and then weaving them together; ultimately, it does not really work. The majority of the stories are not strong enough to stand on their own, and there is not enough to bind them together; even the two stories I enjoyed suffer from being just a part of the whole which doesn't really work. It lacks the profundity and depth it needs to be an important work; a more vicious critic would say that the author arranged his stories like matryoshkas to hide his inability to offer meaningful and perceptive insights into the human nature. I doubt that Cloud Atlas is such a case, and because of this I can't wish it would have been all that it was said to be, profound and meaningful, offering a fresh approach to the subject which is so important. But what can you say about things on which so many said so much over the centuries? Like clouds, Cloud Atlas eventually disperses, leaving in memory snapshots of its elements, and not the whole.
180 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Cloud Atlas.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

July 31, 2012 – Shelved
July 31, 2012 – Shelved as: historical-fiction
July 31, 2012 – Shelved as: science-fiction
August 4, 2012 – Shelved as: books-which-say-aloha
September 11, 2012 – Shelved as: booker-long-and-shortlist
October 7, 2012 – Started Reading
October 8, 2012 –
10.0% "Finished the first section!"
October 9, 2012 –
20.0%
October 9, 2012 –
20.0%
October 11, 2012 –
35.0%
October 12, 2012 –
50.0% "Exactly halfaway through this weird book! Where will it go?"
October 14, 2012 –
80.0% "Slowly approaching the end! Timothy Cavendish is my favorite character."
October 15, 2012 – Finished Reading
October 22, 2012 – Shelved as: read-in-2012
October 27, 2012 – Shelved as: reviewed
October 6, 2020 – Shelved as: own-in-paperback
October 6, 2020 – Shelved as: owned-books

Comments Showing 1-50 of 73 (73 new)


message 1: by Greg (new)

Greg Looking forward to that 'brilliant review'! I wouldn't expect anything less from you! :P


Maciek Thank you, Greg! :) I have one in preparation and finally it looks like I'll have time to finish it!


message 3: by Dustin (new) - added it

Dustin Congratulations, Maciek! I am very much looking forward to reading your review, which will be brilliant, I am sure!


Maciek Thanks, Dustin! I hope you'll enjoy the book as well!


message 5: by Dustin (new) - added it

Dustin You're very welcome, man. Whenever I do read it, I think I'll like it, thank you. I saw that there's now a film adaptation. It looks interesting.


message 6: by Liz (new) - rated it 3 stars

Liz Thank you for reviewing this! I actually didn't figure out all of the connections so this is helpful for me, ha!


message 7: by Trudi (new) - added it

Trudi Fabulous. I'm really torn whether to pick up this one or not. Reviews are kinda split over -- OMG best book ever, to it's okay with a few problems.

Look at the review

now back to me:



Maciek Liz (Consumed by Books) wrote: "Thank you for reviewing this! I actually didn't figure out all of the connections so this is helpful for me, ha!"

Thank you, Liz! This was a fun book to review. Glad it helped you with figuring it out!


Maciek Trudi wrote: "Fabulous. I'm really torn whether to pick up this one or not. Reviews are kinda split over -- OMG best book ever, to it's okay with a few problems.

Look at the review

now back to me:
"


LOL, Trudi! Thanks! I had fun writing that. You won't lose anything by not picking it up, and if you do then you'll probably enjoy it, but it's far from being as groundbreaking as the Goodreads community seems to think.


message 10: by Scribble (new) - added it

Scribble Orca We had the same reaction, huh? Now why am I not surprised? :D


Maciek Because it is the correct one!


message 12: by Scribble (new) - added it

Scribble Orca I particularly liked how you highlighted the self-conscious authorial voice. I found that annoyingly pretentious.


Maciek I disliked it as well and it took away much of the enjoyment of the book from me. The author's presence stood over it and overshadowed the text, careful to remind that you are reading a major work. Buy the Cavendish section was a hoot!


message 14: by Stephen M (last edited Oct 27, 2012 03:46PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Stephen M Great review. I think that metafictive jabs can be quite grating to some but for me, I loved it; I love the switching of styles and the literary grab bag of different genres. It's probably that I have David Mitchell's personality so ingrained in me from seeing his interviews but he seems like the farthest thing from pretentious even though it might across that way in this book. Have you read any other of his stuff? You seemed to enjoy his prose, which I think is stunning and makes the whole journey worth it. His other stuff is far less "look at me" as you say.


Maciek Thanks, Stephen! It's not that I automatically find metafiction jarring and genre/style hopping jarring - it's that I felt that there was not enough glue to hold everything together. I felt as if the author came up with these sections as different ideas, and only then started to think on how he could all make them work as a whole. I actually also don't think that David Mitchell is pretentious and think that he's a nice chap (just look at his mugs). But then he chose to tackle the big issues, and these are the hardest ones since so much has already been said about them; I felt the novel did not quite match the author's ambition and idea. He obviously put a lot of care into this work, so much that he couldn't completely let go of it and had to make sure that we'll get it (with the examples listed). I do like the way he writes and will definitely check out his other work! I already got one recommendation: The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet. Feel free to add more, though you seem to be passionate about his work and would have to recommend his whole ouevre. Not that it's a bad thing; his works definitely look interesting! Which makes me feeling a bit guilty that I did not enjoy this one more, but then so it goes.


message 16: by Stephen M (last edited Oct 27, 2012 04:22PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Stephen M No man. Out of all the dissenters (bah heretics!) you have the best criticism of his work. I really appreciate good critiques and I'll be using this as a reference when I write my review soon. It's true that I love all of D. Mitch's work so I'm pretty damn biased. But you might enjoy Black Swan Green if you don't mind coming of age novels. I think that a lot of D. Mitch's work is seeped in genre tropes and clichés but the way he approaches his stories makes it new and exciting. And anyway I have a bit of a soft spot for the clichés if they're done right. There's also my personal favorite Number9dream which is something of an exercise in styles but again, the writing is a blast; it has a story within a story full of puns, alliteration and assonance, very Joyce inspired. It depends on what your tastes are really.


Maciek Thanks for the kind words and the recommendations! I love coming of age novels. I will definitely read Black Swan Green and will keep an eye out for Number9dream. Am also looking forward to reading your review of the book and seeing what you appreciated about it!


message 18: by Scribble (new) - added it

Scribble Orca You keep the best heretical company, Mac :D.

Let me know what you plan to read (I'm thinking Black Swan Green as well) and we can aspire to Stephen's appreciation together.


Maciek Yes! We're going against the current!

I will tackle Black Swan Green soon! I need to finish the two big tomes I am reading and then I can read that one. I was curious about it for a while andthe recommendation and a read along in good company is something which made me want to pick it up quickly!


message 20: by Adam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Adam Floridia Wow--fantastic review!

(In terms of recs: I loved Cloud Atlas, really liked all of his others, except for The Thousand Autumns..., which was my least favorite.)

Read more of his books so I can read more of your reviews about them!


Aloha It's a fun review, but I disagree with you in downplaying what he was trying to do philosophically in this book. If you don't delve deeper, then it won't be anything but a bunch of stories sewn together. But we've been consistent in our disagreement about books lately.


Maciek Adam wrote: "Wow--fantastic review!

(In terms of recs: I loved Cloud Atlas, really liked all of his others, except for The Thousand Autumns..., which was my least favorite.)

Read more of his books so I can read more of your reviews about them!"


Thank you, Adam, for your kind words and encouragement! That's funny, because a GR friend recommended The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet and praised it highly. I guess I will have to read them all. LOL! I will be reading Black Swan Green very soon as it's the one which has just been recommended to me and on which I had my eye on for a while.


Maciek Aloha wrote: "It's a fun review, but I disagree with you in downplaying what he was trying to do philosophically in this book. If you don't delve deeper, then it won't be anything but a bunch of stories sewn to..."

I don't think I'm downplaying anything and I don't think that there's anything "deeper" to this book that I have not noticed, especially with so much being openly spelled out for the reader.


Aloha Maciek wrote: "I don't think I'm downplaying anything and I don't think that there's anything "deeper" to this book that I have not noticed, especially with so much being openly spelled out for the reader.
"


I'm tired of having an argument with you over books. We obviously have different tastes, from Faulkner to Danielewski, and I don't appreciate the books you like. I will not be having any more book discussions with you. I'd rather have a discussions with people who have similar interests and who I can learn from.


Michael I understand completely your judgment that the “majority of the stories are not strong enough to stand on their own, and there is not enough to bind them together”. That is a perfectly valid personal reaction, but to pronounce that “it does not really work” when it did for me, am I supposed to feel inadequate? I was much more comfortable in your follow up dialog with the key predicates of personal response in italics: “…I felt that there was not enough glue to hold everything together. I felt as if the author came up with these sections as different ideas, and only then started to think on how he could all make them work as a whole.”

You see a lot of pretentiousness in the writing of the book and find the passage with “revolutionary or gimmicky” as part of an attempt to take claim for the former. I found that piece as a sign of humility, an admission that it’s up to the reader to judge. I found that the few instances where the characters reveal the author’s metaphors an invitation to play along with the fun he was having, and not as you suspect that he “had to spell out his game in fear of being misunderstood, or worse: the trick going unnoticed.” You yourself in your introduction with pictures bouncing back and forth are playfully illustrating what you later say in words. Were you afraid your narrative might be inadequate to stand on its own?

With respect to your view that “it's far from being as groundbreaking as the Goodreads community seems to think”, I don’t see a lot of GR readers pronouncing the book to be revolutionary. Instead most of the reviews seem to reflect personal delight in their reading despite challenges with the novelties of structure and mixture of writing styles. I found the book revolutionary. Where else in literature do get immersed in stories that link different eras from the 19th century colonial period to a far future where humanity is barely holding on?

The link you find so weak lies mostly in the theme of how what makes us most successful as humans holds the seeds to our destruction. You captured very well the tragedy of humans on the planet which is invoked by the book: “But what can you say about things on which so many said so much over the centuries? Like clouds, Cloud Atlas eventually disperses, leaving in memory snapshots of its elements, and not the whole.” The beauty to me lies in how in every era, there are individuals heroically swimming against the tide of greed and man’s inhumanity to man. Their lives disappear as clouds do, but their stories or patterns get reincarnated over and over like types of clouds, musical themes, nesting dolls, or birthmarks.

I look forward to your future reviews because they help me think about what it is I value and why in certain books. "De gustibus non est disputandum".


Maciek Aloha wrote: "I'm tired of having an argument with you over books. We obviously have different tastes, from Faulkner to Danielewski, and I don't appreciate the books you like. I will not be having any more book discussions with you. I'd rather have a discussions with people who have similar interests and who I can learn from. "

Yes, we have different tastes because I did not enjoy one book by one author and was not crazy about one book by other author. Yes, this proves it. You don't know the books I like because you never read them. I'm sorry that you didn't like my review and that it irritated you. Many people who love the book did, and I welcome their opinions and criticism just as they welcome mine. Saying "you don't get it" "you need to look deeper" is not criticism just as ignoring the other person is not an argument. Often it is from those that we don't agree with, those who hold a different opinion, that we learn the most. Expelling those with dissenting opinions will severely slow down any learning, and eventually completely stop it.


Maciek Michael, thank you for the great and long response! Let me break it down for convenience.

Michael wrote: "I understand completely your judgment that the “majority of the stories are not strong enough to stand on their own, and there is not enough to bind them together”. That is a perfectly valid personal reaction, but to pronounce that “it does not really work” when it did for me, am I supposed to feel inadequate? I was much more comfortable in your follow up dialog with the key predicates of personal response in italics: “…I felt that there was not enough glue to hold everything together. I felt as if the author came up with these sections as different ideas, and only then started to think on how he could all make them work as a whole.”

Of course you're not supposed to feel inadequate, Michael. This is my personal opinion and judgement, explained further in my review where I state why I thought so. This is my personal review, and it's a reflection of my personal opinion and reading experience. I sometimes skip the pronoun because I feel that it is not always necesary in a personal review, which by definition reflects the opinions of its author.

Michael wrote: "You see a lot of pretentiousness in the writing of the book and find the passage with “revolutionary or gimmicky” as part of an attempt to take claim for the former. I found that piece as a sign of humility, an admission that it’s up to the reader to judge. I found that the few instances where the characters reveal the author’s metaphors an invitation to play along with the fun he was having, and not as you suspect that he “had to spell out his game in fear of being misunderstood, or worse: the trick going unnoticed.” You yourself in your introduction with pictures bouncing back and forth are playfully illustrating what you later say in words. Were you afraid your narrative might be inadequate to stand on its own?

The word "pretentious" never actually appears in my review of the book, and further down in the comments I say that I don't think that the author is being pretentious. The point you made when you say that you "find the passage with “revolutionary or gimmicky” as part of an attempt to take claim for the former. I found that piece as a sign of humility, an admission that it’s up to the reader to judge" is a fair point, and I can agree with it. My remark was not meant to be malicious; having in mind the fact that the author created a character who is also an author (of music) and is wondering about the reception of his own work seemed to me as if the author was showing his own curiosity about the reception of his novel - the connection was too strong to ignore. I know what you mean about the author inviting the others to play along, and I did enjoy that - but in some places it was just too obvious for me to handle, and felt as if the author almost broke the fourth wall to show the reader what he meant by having certain characters explain his concepts (the example I had most problems with is in the spoiler).

The reason for the images at the beginning of my review is far more prosaic. It's a parody of the Old Spice commercial, where the environment and other details are changed throughout - an allusion to multiple genres and styles of Cloud Atlas
Michael wrote: "With respect to your view that “it's far from being as groundbreaking as the Goodreads community seems to think”, I don’t see a lot of GR readers pronouncing the book to be revolutionary. Instead most of the reviews seem to reflect personal delight in their reading despite challenges with the novelties of structure and mixture of writing styles. I found the book revolutionary. Where else in literature do get immersed in stories that link different eras from the 19th century colonial period to a far future where humanity is barely holding on?

You say that you don't see a lot of Goodreaders pronouncing the book as revolutionary...and then you say that you found it to be revolutionary. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just had to point it out. LOL! I think we're deal with semantics here. The majority of GR had an enormously positive reaction to the book, praising it as being unique and brilliant. I was not exactly following suit and expressed my criticisms here. The topics you named can be found in many other, often superior works of literature. I was not sold on how they are supposed to work together in this instance.


Michael wrote: "The link you find so weak lies mostly in the theme of how what makes us most successful as humans holds the seeds to our destruction. You captured very well the tragedy of humans on the planet which is invoked by the book: “But what can you say about things on which so many said so much over the centuries? Like clouds, Cloud Atlas eventually disperses, leaving in memory snapshots of its elements, and not the whole.” The beauty to me lies in how in every era, there are individuals heroically swimming against the tide of greed and man’s inhumanity to man. Their lives disappear as clouds do, but their stories or patterns get reincarnated over and over like types of clouds, musical themes, nesting dolls, or birthmarks.

I absolutely agree with what you said concerning the beauty of the individuals rising against the opressive forces...but I also think that Cloud Atlas ignores a possibility to explore the theme with focus and attention that it deserves, chosing instead to concentrate on its structure and the nesting narratives. This forced the author to severely limit his resources, as each character had little time and place to develop. Focusing on patterns strips these characters of their individuality and dignity, and a new-agey spin will not always save the day.

Michael wrote:I look forward to your future reviews because they help me think about what it is I value and why in certain books. "De gustibus non est disputandum".

Thanks! I look forward to reading your reviews as well and further discussions, and agree totally with your last quote.


message 28: by Aloha (last edited Oct 28, 2012 09:59AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Aloha Maciek wrote: "Aloha wrote: "I'm tired of having an argument with you over books. We obviously have different tastes, from Faulkner to Danielewski, and I don't appreciate the books you like. I will not be having ..."

It is more than one book and one argument. It is a lot of private arguments with one book after another with you. No, I don't need to learn from disagreements. I have enough of that. This is the last of any expenditure of energy toward book discussions with you. It is much more enjoyable having discussions with people who enjoy the same books I enjoy and want to learn more about them, rather than enjoying dismissing and belittling them.


Aloha You shouldn't torture yourself by reading the books you ask me to recommend to you. I usually only recommend books that I think will be to someone's taste. But for you, I'll make an exception because you asked. It's probably because you wanted fodder for your witty reviews,


Maciek Aloha wrote: "It is more than one book and one argument. It is a lot of private arguments with one book after another with you. No, I don't need to learn from disagreements. I have enough of that. This is the last of any expenditure of energy toward book discussions with you. It is much more enjoyable having discussions with people who enjoy the same books I enjoy and want to learn more about them, rather than enjoying dismissing and belittling them."

That's not true, but that doesn't even matter. An argument does not consist of not enjoying a book. I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. I'm happy if someone is willing to devote his time and attention to me and talk with me about a book. You seem to only enjoy having discussions with people who always agree with what you say and never do otherwise. I'm not dismissing or belittling this book. If I read it and reviewed it critically, it shows that I considered it carefully and paid attention to what I was reading. How is it belittling and dismissing?


Maciek Aloha wrote: "You shouldn't torture yourself by reading the books you ask me to recommend to you. I usually only recommend books that I think will be to someone's taste. But for you, I'll make an exception because you asked. It's probably because you wanted fodder for your witty reviews, "

Yes, I only asked you for recommendations because I only wanted to dismiss and belittle these books and get on your nerves. I really had no other motivation. You got me! You seem to take a different opinion on a book as a personal insult, which it of course is not. I enjoy giving recommendations and receiving them. You would only make a recommendation for me if I asked for it, so I did. I think I have enough of belittling and dismissing reviews for now, so I won't ask for more.


Aloha Maciek wrote: "Yes, I only asked you for recommendations because I only wanted to dismiss and belittle these books and get on your nerves. I really had no other motivation. You got me! You seem to take a different opinion on a book as a personal insult, which it of course is not. I enjoy giving recommendations and receiving them. You would only make a recommendation for me if I asked for it, so I did. I think I have enough of belittling and dismissing reviews for now, so I won't ask for more. ."

Don't put it on me that I take a different opinion on a book as a personal insult. What I take as a personal insult is when somebody asked me for recommendations, and consistently puts down my recommendations. I'm not talking one book or two books, but one book after another in a row from 1Q84 to Skippy Dies to Cloud Atlas, and all the others in between. I may not read the recommendations you try to push on me unasked for, but at least I don't ask for your recommendations in order to make fun of them.

Yes, it's a good idea that you don't ask for more recommendations from me, and I know not to give you any. Besides, I'm not having any more discussions regarding books with you.


message 33: by Maciek (last edited Oct 28, 2012 02:33PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Maciek Aloha wrote: "Don't put it on me that I take a different opinion on a book as a personal insult. What I take as a personal insult is when somebody asked me for recommendations, and consistently puts down my recommendations. I'm not talking one book or two books, but one book after another in a row from 1Q84 to Skippy Dies to Cloud Atlas, and all the others in between. I may not read the recommendations you try to push on me unasked for, but at least I don't ask for your recommendations in order to make fun of them.

Yes, it's a good idea that you don't ask for more recommendations from me, and I know not to give you any. Besides, I'm not having any more discussions regarding books with you. "


Well, in my case you do. I knew about these books before and wanted to read them. It's hardly a recommendation when you tell someone about a book you're currently reading. Of these three I only didn't like 1Q84. I really liked Skippy Dies and wasn't impresed by Cloud Atlas - both were in my reading plans and I read 1Q84 because I wanted to read it together. How's that for putting down? In fact I would be putting down your recommendations if you were giving them to me and I would never read them, which is illustrated by what you do with mine. I'm sorry, but I had no idea that you have to ask for permission to make a recommendation. People on this site recommend books to one another and discover delightful surprises. Each recommendation I made I chose and found for you to read and enjoy. These were not titles I happened to be reading and recommended without thinking about your interests. This is how I recommend books. I never "pushed" them on you. To say that I did is not true and hurtful.

I never asked for your recommendations to make fun of them and in fact never made fun of you recommending these books and of the books themselves. This is some weird conspiracy which has no connection to reality. I asked because I wanted to read these books, and talk about them with you. You can do that with having different reactions - just look at the comments above.


Aloha Let me spell it out for you simply. It's like this. You give me the gift of pierogies. I don't like pierogies. Then you keep on pestering me to eat the pierogies. Am I obligated to eat the pierogies just because you gave them to me unasked for?

You saw that I was eating eggrolls. You said they look good and asked for some. I gave you some. And you said they're mediocre. Then you saw I was eating chow mein. You said they look good and asked for some. I gave you some. Then you said they're mediocre. It goes on and on.

Every single of those books, you made fun of them privately to me, even Skippy Dies. You pointed out to me how some people didn't like it. Every conversation we've had about books I like were of no benefit to me. I didn't learn anything about them, but are only annoyed by the conversation.

Don't downplay the annoyance, whether you did it intentionally or not.


message 35: by Maciek (last edited Oct 28, 2012 03:14PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Maciek That's a false comparison. Books are not like pierogies - pierogies is a single type of dish and each book is different. Obviously you know that, since your second example illustrates it - but an example for me has to be condesceningly simplistic and suggesting that all books I recommended are simplistic and the same. And it's not the only reason why it's false - you never ate these pierogies. So, you know that you don't like them in advance, before trying them, even though you don't know their taste. And no, you're not obligated to read books that I recommended. I must have pestered so much that you've actually never read them. I never pestered you to read my recommended books - this is a flat out untruth and it's cruel and vicious.

This is also a false example. You were reading a book which I didn't thought was any good, the next one was good, and I liked the next one with some reservations, disliked the next one, etc. That's how people react to what they read - differently. I never say that something is mediocre out of spite to irritate.

Yes, people didn't like them! Is this even a surprise? People don't like all the books you enjoy. Some even hate them. I'm not making fun in a cruel way. I didn't make fun of Skippy Dies because it's a comic novel and does its job pretty well. You're also making fun of books that I read and other things about me, but I never got angry about it. So is it okay if you make jokes about me and my books and when I make a light joke it's not okay? Doesn't sound very fair. Perhaps the conversations would be a benefit if you'd listen to what I have to say, but you admitted that you only want to talk to people who agree with you on everything and are not interested in hearing other opinions. Would the conversations be a benefit if I was nodding my head and saying that you are right all the time? I don't think so. The fact that people disagree on novels and discuss their disagreements shows that they care about the book and respect one another, because they want to hear what the other thinks.

I'm not downplaying the annoyance, but here it grows up to incredible proportions which are totally unnecessary. I'm not annoyed when someone dislikes a book I like and is ready to talk about it, because this is where I might learn something I had not considered or knew before. This is what makes reading fascinating for me - that we all have so many different reactions to the same novel. I enjoy all of them, and not only the ones which are like mine because these I already know.


Aloha The amount of energy you just expended with little result is proof of how little benefit our heated discussions have had for me. I'm stopping it as of now.


message 37: by Maciek (last edited Oct 28, 2012 03:40PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Maciek Right at the moment where I adressed all the points you made, over and over again. I am tired and have no idea why this talk about tastes got so long. This is a book review and is a review of a book. People review the same books in different ways because they're different. That's really all there is to it. Sometimes they like the same things, sometimes they don't. When they do they talk about why they like it, and if they don't they talk about why they didn't like it. Both options are equally important and carry the same meaning - they bring forth intelligent human interraction where we exchange what's in our minds. I call for peace and extend hugs and love for dearest Aloha with whom I might not always completely agree on every book but who is an absolutely wonderful person and this is what matters to me. Everybody who was looking at this convo - well, you guys can't say that you've been bored. LOL!


Jason Great review, Maciek. This book is tough because there are elements of it that are not mass-appealing. Glad you found components of it to enjoy, though. Great review nonetheless.


Maciek Jason wrote: "Great review, Maciek. This book is tough because there are elements of it that are not mass-appealing. Glad you found components of it to enjoy, though. Great review nonetheless."

Thank you, Jason! I also enjoyed your review and remembered that I have not liked it, which is exactly what I'm going to do before I go to bed.


message 40: by Tom LA (last edited Oct 28, 2012 10:45PM) (new)

Tom LA Maciek I agree with you completely where you say: "The majority of the stories are not strong enough to stand on their own, and there is not enough to bind them together; even the two stories I enjoyed suffer from being just a part of the whole which doesn't really work. It lacks the profundity and depth it needs to be an important work; a more vicious critic would say that the author arranged his stories like matryoshkas to hide his inability to offer meaningful and perceptive insights into the human nature".

In short: no, no, no, no. This story doesn't work, the links between the various parts are too thin and superficial, but most of all, it's EMPTY. There is no underlying core, no basic feeling, no nothing at all ----- unless you think it is actually about life, death, freedom, slavery, revolution, etc, etc. basically about EVERYTHING! This book a big good-looking whole lot of nothing. And the movie is, too.


Maciek Thank you, Tabasco. I agree. I felt as if the author tried to tackle a well known subject from different angles, but ultimately ended up saying the things we already know, bordering on platitudes. Dang, that's bad news. I wanted to see the movie because the trailer looks good and I'm interested to see how the book would transfer to the screen.


Maciek Thank you, Remi! I will definitely read more by David Mitchell as I see that I enjoy his style. It's funny, because people commenting recommended me all of his works - you just recommended the last missing one. LOL! Thank you. I will have to read them all and see which one I enjoy most!

Run on sentences are good!


message 43: by Lindy (new)

Lindy Terrell Hi, I enjoyed the review although I haven't read the book yet. I saw, somewhere else, a comparison between David Mitchell and Philip K. Dick, and I'm wondering if you've enjoyed any P.K.D books.

And that conversation with Aloha was a little more painful than entertaining. It's sad that there are always people who feel threatened by the fact that their opinions are more emotionally based, rather than logically. There is nothing wrong with a person having an emotional reaction to a book and liking it for that reason, but emotions are harder to defend when speaking critically, and so they feel inferior... which leads to anger and a subsequent (protective) mental block.


message 44: by Maciek (last edited Nov 06, 2012 11:43AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Maciek Lindy wrote: "Hi, I enjoyed the review although I haven't read the book yet. I saw, somewhere else, a comparison between David Mitchell and Philip K. Dick, and I'm wondering if you've enjoyed any P.K.D books.

..."


Hi Lindy! Thanks for the comment! I have read some works by Philip K. Dick, and the one I remember (and added here) is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. It was made into Blade Runner, one of the best science fiction films ever. The comparison results probably from the fact that one of the segments of Cloud Atlas is dystopian sci-fi. That conversation was a result of a misunderstanding but it's been cleared and it's all past now, and everything's okay. :)


Aloha Lindy wrote: "Hi, I enjoyed the review although I haven't read the book yet. I saw, somewhere else, a comparison between David Mitchell and Philip K. Dick, and I'm wondering if you've enjoyed any P.K.D books.

..."


Lindy, Maciek and I are close friends, too close. It became a too close of an interest of what the other was reading. I don't care what other people think of Cloud Atlas or any of the other books. This is not about Cloud Atlas, but a deeper issue between us which exploded from frustration that started with private conversations. I don't make a habit of going to people's bad reviews and having arguments with them. I don't care about changing people's minds about books. How they view a book depends on their education, knowledge and experience.


message 46: by Lindy (last edited Nov 18, 2012 06:58PM) (new)

Lindy Terrell Excellent. Glad to hear all is well now, and I hope I didn't offend any with my interpretation of the conflict.
Books are similar to music, I think. Experience can expand a persons ability to appreciate a wider range of genres, but it can also make the person more discriminating. Since there's so much music to listen to it's good to know what you don't like so that you don't waste your time. Back to books... Lately I won't finish reading a book that I'm already half done with, if I can tell that it's going to be a waste of time. And there are so many books, I don't even want to start one that's going to waste my time. That's why reading the review of someone with similar taste is so helpful.


message 47: by Paul (new)

Paul Bryant Just caught up with this review - excellent stuff! The only DM book I have tried is the Thousand Ausumns, and I crashed & burned quite quickly; but strangely I felt compelled to write a review which also contained a mug shot of Mr Mitchell.

There's like one other critical GR review of Cloud Atlas (he gives it one star and really denounces it) and that attracted some severe aggravation too. Rock on, David Mitchell unfans.


Jason Yeah, Neil's. It's good, though.


message 49: by Paul (new)

Paul Bryant that's the one! no punches pulled there...


Maciek Paul wrote: "Just caught up with this review - excellent stuff! The only DM book I have tried is the Thousand Ausumns, and I crashed & burned quite quickly; but strangely I felt compelled to write a review whic..."

Thank you, Paul! I read this one since it sounded so interesting and is obviously his most popular - but I didn't end up enjoying it as the majority of the Goodreads community. I will read some of his other books because I enjoyed parts of this book - just not all of it.

You're probably referring to Neil's review - which is much more...passionate than mine. LOL! Criticizing reviews seem to drown like drops in the ocean of 5 star ones. But what is an ocean but a multitude of drops?


« previous 1
back to top