MetaChat - Book Club: Cloud Atlas

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

08 January 2006

Book Club: Cloud Atlas all sorts of stuff inside (some from me, some from others, and some from elsewhere): →[More:]interlinking stories about stories, with the previous story connected to each succeeding one? what does that tell us about how the author (and all of us) might see the world, and history, and our place in it, etc?

linking themes: Apart from the fact that everyone is reading the story of the person before, and the protaganist always has a comet tattoo, I can't see any other overt linking themes. What, if anything do the stories have to do with each other?

Okay, so each of the six stories is connected in many ways (repeated locations, some repeated phrases, some repeated themes). It's also apparent that each of the characters with a comet-shaped birthmark is the same soul reincarnated. I got that much before I was halfway through. My question is, is there anything more to it than this? Is there a grand statement he's making, or an underlying reason for all of this, or is it just a cute gimmick?

Do people think it is reincarnation or what?

responsibility? Sonmi, Luisa, Zachary...do the others really take responsibility for their own lives?

this review says: ...Yet there is no overall narrative, unless it is a simple principle that returns in every story: greed, and its many consequences. From the exploitation of savages in the Pacific to the (not so?) distant future after "the Fall", where the world has reverted to one of savagery, greed stands out. Sometimes tossing out almost cliched anti-globalization slogans, at others looking at the real motivations of some of the players in the centuries-long drama, Mitchell nevertheless draws a portrait that makes the reader think. ...
What do you think? is it just greed? is it that base and uninspiring? i came away with hope, esp. from Zachary's story.

this discussion asks: Frobisher says of the layout of his sextet:- "Revolutionary or gimmicky?" Is this book revolutionary or gimmicky?
I saw Frobisher in many ways as Mitchell himself...creating something not totally different from Cloud Atlas itself. what do you think?

does the style of breaking the stories in 2 work? would it have worked better as more linear?

Is the recurring birthmark thing a nod to Mishima's use of a similar device in his Sea of Fertility tetrology? In that, four different young people come into the life of Shigekuni Honda, each with an identical set of moles. There are also structural and
thematic similarities between the two works. (i'm not familiar with this work at all--anyone know?)

Sonmi and Soylent Green: too obvious? too dumb? McDonalds?

so, what did everyone think? what bothered them? (the breaking off of each story to go to the next before that one was finished bothered me, and i still don't know exactly why each was broken off where it was)

what did people love about it? any specific parts? (Zachary's for me)

post by: amberglow at: 15:59 | 102 comments

Zachry's part drove me nuts. My lady's an avid reader, and when I gave her that part to read briefly, she said, "it's not so bad." Then she kept going for a few pages and changed her mind. I loved Nadsat, but I couldn't take all the dropped letters. I mean, if you're going to show the evolution of language, just leave out the apostrophes. It was inconsistent, as well, or why not call the character Zach'ry? The language was more pervasive/intense than the occasional Nadsat word in Clockwork Orange, and at times it just seemed too cutesy.

(is there a term for a conlang/dialect designed specifically for a work of fiction? I seem to remember there being one.)

But it was also the central piece of the book. The difference between the civilized and the savage, p. 303, as living for the now or living for the future, was one of the main unifying themes of the work. Similarly, the very end of the book where Adam Ewing talks about the difference one person can make is a central theme. Together, they make up the entire moral of the Half-Lives story; the reporter almost single-handedly defeats the savage, greedy, utility company. The sequence of individual choices made by each person in the book (particularly every person in that section who decided to oppose the power company) had clear repercussions.

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 16:32

After finishing it and going back through the chapters, I made the observations that it alternates between people who sacrifice to make a change (for the better?) in the world and people who just are out for themselves. Maybe doesn't exactly alternate. But it did seem about half and half.

posted by matildaben 08 January | 16:36

To be honest (if not modest), the idea of having the reincarnated characters reminds me of a rather confusing story that came to me in a dream once, where all the characters are the same person reincarnated, and there is, in fact, only one soul in the universe. This from a discussion with various friends over the years as to where new souls come from, whether you believe in reincarnation or Heaven or whatever. But really, it's the only way to look at the world altruistically; if everyone else is really you, who are you screwing when you screw someone over?

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 16:40

I noticed quite a few links between the various stories. For example, the characters always have an issue with their lodging, or with hospitality.

* Adam Ewing has to stay at that awful place at the start of his story, then makes the stowaway boy his guest.

* Frobisher gets kicked out of various hotels, then becomes Ayrs's guest.

* Luisa Rey stays as the guest of the power company.

* Timothy Cavendish's story, of course, is mainly about lodging difficulties.

* Sonmi-451 has to flee her home, then stay at a University, then flee again and hide various places.

* Meronym (note that SHE is the one with the birthmark, not Zachry) stays as the guest of the islanders.

--------

I also noticed many little things, like phrases characters would use, or characters who would have a sudden fall, and feel like they "dislodged a memory" (obviously a memory from a previous life).

Stories #1 and #6 had the most parallels. They both involved island tribes in the Pacific. The Maori and the Kona are obvious parallels. In story #1, the white man came in and exploited/destroyed various cultures. In story #6, the devastation caused by the white man is complete, and now a race of dark-skinned people come in to try to reverse the damage. They both had characters ascending a mountain to find an abandoned temple.

----

To me, Meronym is clearly the reincarnation of Sonmi-451. Aside from just the tattoo, Sonmi-451 tells the Abbess that she would like to be reincarnated as a member of her colony. In "Sloosha's Crossin", the "comet soul" character becomes a member of a similar community with an Abbess.

posted by agropyron 08 January | 16:48

It also seemed to me that as the stories progressed, the "comet soul" characters became stronger and stronger characters.

* Adam Ewing is almost totally at the mercy of his environment and companions.

* Frobisher has a lot of talent, but has very little power over his own life. He manages to get in with Ayrs, but self-destructs.

* Luisa Rey is a very competent young woman.

* Timothy Cavendish... not particularly powerful. The theory stumbles a bit here.

* Sonmi-451, clearly very powerful.

* Meronym, also clearly very powerful.

posted by agropyron 08 January | 16:51

Eideteker, I was also completely annoyed by the accents in Sloosha's Crossin'. It wasn't particularly well done imo.

I also really expected to see some grand story being told by the interlocking stories, and was a bit disappointed that it's apparently just the reincarnation gimmick, the nested stories, and some common themes.

Did anyone else get something beyond that?

posted by agropyron 08 January | 16:55

Side comment: The book The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson also has reincarnated characters showing up at different times throughout history, except in this case it is 3 different characters, and the history is an alternate history.

posted by matildaben 08 January | 16:56

I think that definitely the author intended them to be reincarnated souls - in a bit that I hated because it was so cute he comments on it - Cavendish remarks on the birthmark device and says

"One or two things will have to go: the insinuation that Luisa Rey is this Robert Frobisher chap reincarnated for example. Far too hippie-druggy-new age."

And that brings up the main thing I disliked about the book - I felt that the author was just being too precious. Describing the way Frobisher was outlining his composition was so blatant I felt like the author was all like, "see? see? look how clever I am, but yet I need to point it out to you readers really obviously". That pissed me off.

I think something that was linked through all the stories was the concept of imprisonment, or being trapped (with the exception of Frobisher, but he was kind of there under self-banishment to Europe). Definitely also the idea of being the little person fighting back, and what you are driven to do when circumstances dictate it. Somni is the most obvious depiction of that.

I thought it was interesting that although Zachary was the protagonist of the final (middle) story, it was Meronym that had the birthmark.

posted by gaspode 08 January | 16:57

My side note: I was so happy to start the story with Maori and Moriori -- Yay! history that I know about!

posted by gaspode 08 January | 17:00

I love the Years of Rice and Salt, but thought this wasn't done as well, if it really is reincarnation. And Robinson was all about learning and growing each time.

I'm not sure i'd say this was about growing, and the lessons learned were usually depressing. More realistic, i guess?

Sometimes i thought it was just not-buyable--the whole interview setup for Sonmi (i think she would have just been destroyed/recycled/ ground-up) especially.

I like the trapped thing, gas--but then i'm like "well, why?" is it their failings or societies or what? what's the point? and why Zachary as pinnacle (or bottom?)

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:04

i did think that the Luisa Rey thing brings up a really good question--are these meant to be real people or all fictions within fictions?

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:06

Amberglow, Zachry isn't the "comet soul" character in his story. Meronym is, and she represents the final stage. I think Sonmi-451 was probably the pinnacle.

posted by agropyron 08 January | 17:06

I like the trapped thing, gas--but then i'm like "well, why?" is it their failings or societies or what? what's the point?

Oh yeah, I'm the same. I get the themes running through the story, but I'm like - then what? What are we supposed to take home from this?

Because I didn't get any hope really from Zachary's story, I thought we were right at the end of the world.

And what are we to assume happened between Somni and Zachary's stories? Do we assume that the knowledge of the truth of the fabricants get out? Is that why Somni became a god to Zachary's people? (not that they now know her story)

posted by gaspode 08 January | 17:09

Following agropyron's observations about the strength of the characters, I wonder if there's any relevance to the fact that the strongest characters seem to be women?

Forgive my lousy memory if I'm off on any of this, but I think another uniting theme is that everyone has been deceived. Adam is deceived into believing there is a Worm in his brain, Frobisher finds out Ayrs knew about his relationship with Jocasta all along, Luisa falls for tricks a couple of times, Cavendish is deceived into becoming a prisoner, Sonmi is deceived by Unanimity, and crap, was Meronym deceived? Hmm.

I'm trying not to feel that this book was a self-indulgent exercise for Mitchell, that he wanted to experiment with imitating the styles of others (Melville and Italo Calvino, for example).

I enjoyed Frobisher's part the most, although Sonmi was a close second. I think because I liked those two characters the most.

Does anyone know what "pi-jawed" means? It was on page 449 of my copy of the book (Random House paperback) and the sentence was, "A pi-jawed ass of kingly proportions, so busy planning his next boorish interruption that he never listens properly." (In Letters from Zedelghem, the 21st-x-1931 letter.) Couldn't find it in a cople dictionaries.

posted by amro 08 January | 17:09

couple

posted by amro 08 January | 17:11

I liked Frobisher's part the best too. It felt like it was written the most...fluidly? freely? It didn't feel like a composition exercise.

posted by gaspode 08 January | 17:11

agro: Maybe it was not cabability so much as confidence. Cavendish was (aside from brief discouragements) very full of himself. I also didn't notice as matilda did the sort of oscillation between the civilized/savage poles from character to character.

What I really liked was the self-awareness Sonmi showed in the second half of her orison. That she was just part of a macroscopic plan collectively (and unconsciously?) designed by a headless mass of society, and yet still went to the trouble to write her Declarations... her drop in the ocean.

ag: Interesting to note that in some ways, Zachry had the most personal freedom (in his society, there is no taboo against sex at 12) from living in the least structured society (whereas Sonmi's was rigidly structured and movement was highly regulated). While he had liberty in some senses, he was limited technologically, and was thus not free to travel around the world within hours or to read great books, etc. Interesting dichotomy, to me.

Did anyone else notice an emphasis on stratification of society?

Also, I think the fact vs. fiction of it all was very deliberately left vague. "It could happen to you..." was the message I got.

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 17:14

also, i liked the comet as a link--they all sorta had one bright shining moment when they were better than themselves (sonmi and cavendish and luisa especially). So then meronym is the final dying light of the comet in the sky?

i guess the meronym/zachary thing bothers me, bec it's not about her anymore--she's the stand-in for what's left of society and culture and stuff, and not any of the previous main characters, who were all acted upon more than actors.

i assumed a revolution from within, and war (nuclear?) between nations, bet. sonmi and zachary.

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:15

amro: Oh dear! In my youth I would much rather have had a crisp four of the best than have to endure one of those lengthy and cliché-ridden pi-jaws ("not pulling your weight ... letting the side down ..."), gazing the while at the lugubrious expression on the face of the earnest pi-jawer. from here---a British expression for people who drone or lecture or reprimand or preach i guess.

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:18

Thanks amberglow!

posted by amro 08 January | 17:20

I did think Cavendish's story was the most altogether unbelievable and stretchy. But sonmi seeing it as a movie fit really well, too.

anytime, amro : >

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:23

pode: The idea is that Zachry is not the last story. There is still hope, even if that hope is dwindling.

amro: I liked Frobisher as a character, too, because he was rich and textured. He was a bastard, but there was still likeability because of his earnestness.

As for pi-jawed, I imagined a face with a Greek letter Pi for a mouth. It's a squiggle of a mouth, and then two parallel vertical lines, almost like a ventriloquist's dummy. His jaw was on a hinge, and he spouted words every bit as inane as a dummy would.

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 17:23

Fact vs. Fiction...

If you take at face value what the stories give us:

Meronym has the actual record of the Orison of Sonmi-451. So that would seem to be real... Although it now strikes me that it could have been a work of fiction that was later believed to be real.

Sonmi-451 has the movie about Cavendish, which is purported to be based on his autobiographical story. Again, that could have actually been fictional.

Cavendish has a story that he believes to be entirely fictional... Although it's possible that the man writing as Hilary V. Hush was writing based on actual events in his world. (Luisa Rey can't have written it and submitted it to Cavendish because Cavendish is the reincarnation of Luisa.)

Luisa has Frobisher's letters. If we believe her story is fictional, it's still possible that the author of the mystery decided to use a real-life (for him) composer in his story.

Also note: Frobisher himself suspects that Adam Ewing's diary is fiction! Hah! (See page 64 of the Random House edition)

posted by agropyron 08 January | 17:24

Cavendish's story was the first that made me think of a movie (ridiculously dramatic, over the top). It's usually an inevitable question when discussing books, but what do you think it would take to make this into a movie? Could it be any good? Without devolving into questions of who'd play who, who'd direct, etc., what sorts of formal challenges do you think this (kind of) story presents to a film adaptation? Could you get people to watch it?

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 17:26

Well, and here's where the reincarnation thing gets screwy. I was assuming that Cavendish's story was around the present day. If Luisa Rey's is in the mid-70s, then how can Cavendish be a reincarnation?

posted by gaspode 08 January | 17:26

I mean, with regards to the whole fact vs fiction thing.

posted by gaspode 08 January | 17:27

If Luisa Rey's is in the mid-70s, then how can Cavendish be a reincarnation?

I've got it! Parallel universes. Wait, it still doesn't make sense. Good catch gaspode.

posted by agropyron 08 January | 17:28

i guess that's what i think--they're all fictions, found and noted upon by further fictions (meaning there's invisible actors pulling all strings for various reasons???) sorta like how there are common themes running throughout all literature--man vs. himself, man vs. society, etc...

it would be a great miniseries, i think, like a michener book, but not. (or like Twin Palms or something)

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:28

Wild Palms : >

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:30

I think I'm with you on the fictions, but i really don't like it. I don't know why I don't like it, but I want my fictional characters to be real in their own universe, dammit!

posted by gaspode 08 January | 17:30

well then, we have to look outside the book, no? Mitchell wants us to follow these stories, this arc of the comet, etc, for some reason. What's he telling us about life, society, progress, growth, etc?

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:32

freedom and self-determination as just another fiction?

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:33

I agree gaspode.

I also agree that it was entirely too precious in various places. I really liked three of the stories though: Adam Ewing's, Frobisher's, and Sonmi-451's. Although I hated the twist ending of Sonmi-451's story, I loved the world and the character.

posted by agropyron 08 January | 17:33

Or the flipside, amberglow - what lack of freedom and self-determination leads us to.

posted by gaspode 08 January | 17:35

Was Mitchell maybe trying to make a point about the power/influence of fiction on people? If each work of fiction had an influence on the next person (ok, also a fictional character in this hypothesis I know), Mitchell is sort of proving how influential he, and other fiction writers, can be on readers and moviegoers.

posted by amro 08 January | 17:36

Or, trying to prove.

Also, I agree that it was far too precious in parts.

posted by amro 08 January | 17:38

Yeah, agropyron, those were the ones I liked. I could barely read the Luisa Rey story (same comments on it as Cavendish had.)

amro - that's an interesting idea. I gotta think about that, though.

posted by gaspode 08 January | 17:39

Adam Ewing finds (in a rather contrived / stiched on section) the wooden masks from the zachry section. This is the "story" which is passed from the last section to the first section. I'd say that the reincarnation theme is cyclical. I guess his Russian Doll format also tries to reflect this.

posted by seanyboy 08 January | 17:41

Just read the wikipedia entry. Interesting tidbit:

At least two of the characters are mentioned in Mitchell's first book, Ghostwritten (1999). Luisa Rey, the protagonist of the third story, 'Half-Lives', is mentioned in a radio show dedication in the 'Night Train' segment of Ghostwritten, while Timothy Cavendish, from the fourth story, 'The Ghastly Ordeal', appears as a minor character in 'London'. In addition, the phrase cloud atlas is used as a descriptive flourish by the narrator Eiji Miyake in Mitchell's second novel, number9dream.

posted by gaspode 08 January | 17:41

I still think that Mitchell's point is that the factitious or fictitious nature of the stories is irrelevant. You're already reading a work of fiction. As in the story I linked to, the real point is that everyone's actions have repercussions for everyone else; what goes around comes around. Why is Zachry the protagonist in Meronym's era? Is he any less important than Meronym? I think he's trying to show the reincarnation thing is a red herring; it's about everyone's impact on everyone else. And amro, you've encapsulated that nicely with the idea of the author's impact. Thanks.

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 17:41

The Luisa Rey story was like all the crappy beach-reading mysteries that I generally avoid wasting time on. That irritated me.

posted by amro 08 January | 17:42

So why is it titled "Cloud Atlas"? Based on what we know about Mitchell, I'm going to guess it's something cute, like "clouds are insubstantial and constantly in flux, and so is the truth, man!"

posted by agropyron 08 January | 17:44

seanyboy, I so did not pick that up. Which pages (if you have the random house edition?)

posted by gaspode 08 January | 17:46

like, Mitchell's playing with how we read novels (or others' lives), and what we expect from them. Even if a story is just a dream or a lie, etc, but you learn something--see Life of Pi or the Last Voyage of Somebody the Sailor for just one of millions of examples--he gives us these 1/2 stories, a pinnacle? in sonmi, a postscript in zachary, then the other half of the stories running backwards. The end of history? of time? or the cycle? And it left me disappointed and unresolved--is it that it's all futile or that what goes around comes around? ?? or is that it's all a lie/fiction but something we need to form?

Was Mitchell maybe trying to make a point about the power/influence of fiction on people? If each work of fiction had an influence on the next person (ok, also a fictional character in this hypothesis I know), Mitchell is sort of proving how influential he, and other fiction writers, can be on readers and moviegoers.
amro, i really like that but i think we have to take it further. we all need to make stories out of our experiences and lives, and try to fit it into a recognized form. We even do it with our dreams--just writing them down or telling others about them fits them into a narrative box. And we are all trained to take messages away from books and movies and all narratives. If the narrative(s) doesn't satisfy our needs of it, what does that mean?

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:48

The wikipedia article uses the term "save" a lot. Each story is "saved" for the next character in some format.

Seanyboy: Where was the masks part?

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 17:48

Cloud Atlas is the name of the musical work Frobisher is "writing" (but he's ghostwriting in reality)

Has anyone read those other works by him?

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:49

see, i wouldn't use "saved", but "passed on" or "told to"

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:51

Adam Ewing finds (in a rather contrived / stiched on section) the wooden masks from the zachry section. This is the "story" which is passed from the last section to the first section. I'd say that the reincarnation theme is cyclical. I guess his Russian Doll format also tries to reflect this.
posted by seanyboy 08 January | 17:41

Oooh, I had missed that too. Interesting... but kind of cutesy again. I'm with gaspode, I'd rather read a story about a coherent fictional world with interconnected characters than a story whose framing device is trying to make some statement about the nature of fiction.

posted by agropyron 08 January | 17:51

The cloud atlas thing is spelled out in one of the sections. One of the characters talks (can't remember which, argh) about having an atlas for the clouds, which move through the sky and change but otherwise remain themselves.

ag: Perhaps the story was really Adam's (not Zachry's, as many seem to think). That's how I read it, at least. These were possible futures (or the long future we are powerless to change, contrasted with the short future we can change [2nd half of Luisa Rey where that's said?]) that it was the destiny/responsibility of the men of Ewing's generation (about to go to Civil War, among other things) to shape the future. For each of us, we can only change the present.

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 17:53

from a wash post review on amazon's page for it: ...And so it goes, again and again: a cycle of starts and stops that vectors through past, present and future, linked by buried clues and the twin refrains of deceit and exploitation. What all these stories have in common is that each draws its lifeblood from the same heart of darkness. Cloud Atlas is a work of fiction, ultimately, about the myriad misuses of fiction: the seductive lies told by grifters, CEOs, politicians and others in the service of expanding empires and maintaining power. Soon we meet Timothy Cavendish, the curmudgeonly editor of a London vanity press, who is tricked into incarceration by his vengeful brother. We meet a wise, world-weary clone from 22nd-century Korea, where hypercapitalism and biotechnology have fused into absolute tyranny. And finally, in post-apocalypse Hawaii, we meet a storyteller who enthralls his listeners with the tale of a suspicious visitor from a far-off land, echoing the account of Adam Ewing that opens the book.

At this point the novel's action rapidly reverses course, going back through time and picking up the abandoned narrative threads, weaving them together to craft a fascinating meditation on civilization's insatiable appetites. Even Mitchell's characters seem to voice uncertainty about their creator's grand plan. "Revolutionary or gimmicky? Shan't know until it's finished," admits Frobisher of his own "Cloud Sextet," a musical composition whose ambitious six-part structure mirrors the novel's. And Cavendish, the editor from the old school, has his qualms, too: "I disapprove of flashbacks, foreshadowings, and tricksy devices; they belong in the 1980s with M.A.s in postmodernism and chaos theory," he harrumphs.

But sometimes novels filled with big ideas require equally big mechanisms for relaying them, and it's hard to imagine an idea bigger than the one Mitchell is tackling here: how the will to power that compels the strong to subjugate the weak is replayed perpetually in a cycle of eternal recurrence. ...

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:56

I do also think that he is trying to send a bunch of political and religious messages, that we are probably supposed to ponder. Sonmi mentions a time when only animals were cloned - are we being warned about what our future could hold if we inevitably continue with cloning? Meronym tells Zachary something (damn I wish I had taken notes) about how Georgie is nothing to be scared of, that they want him to be scared.

Ewing mentions a cloud atlas, too, I think (re: the sextet being the basis for the title of the novel).

posted by amro 08 January | 17:58

I wonder, Eid: Adam wouldn't have been able to envision it all, i don't think. He was really clueless, and little more than a pre-awakened sonmi in the beginning, no? But then, why start with his story and not one earlier or later?

posted by amberglow 08 January | 17:59

the birth of modernity in the 1800s? industrial revolution? etc?

posted by amberglow 08 January | 18:00

ag - Well, he becomes an abolitionist at the end, right? But then slavery happens again in Sonmi's time. He becomes "awakened" like Sonmi did to slavery.

posted by amro 08 January | 18:01

and it's hard to imagine an idea bigger than the one Mitchell is tackling here: how the will to power that compels the strong to subjugate the weak is replayed perpetually in a cycle of eternal recurrence. ...

And that is a powerful theme. I think the whole reincarnation thing, even surmising that it's supposed to reflect the cylic nature of subjugation ^^ is just too distracting, especially when combined with the novel structure.

posted by gaspode 08 January | 18:02

And don't they all have awakenings of one sort or another? and isn't there hope in that?

good point, amro.

posted by amberglow 08 January | 18:02

(But history repeated.)

posted by amro 08 January | 18:02

That last comment was referring to my previous comment about slavery.

posted by amro 08 January | 18:03

interesting piece on metafiction

posted by amberglow 08 January | 18:05

are we being warned about what our future could hold if we inevitably continue with cloning?

That's a crucial point. A warning against the inevitable. We will continue with cloning research, but it's what we do with that cloning (the evitable part of the inevitable future) that determines the course of history. It's inevitable, yes, but we're still responsible for the outcome.

ag: Wasn't Zachry similarly clueless? I think the characters got more and more canny as time progressed, up to Sonmi (even the wise Meronym was a retrograde). But again, you have the schism between the development of society on the backs of those with the will to power, creating more and more discerning individuals, but trapping them in more and more rigid societies.

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 18:09

and from the comments there: ...How does one know when metafiction has ceased to do what it set out to do? My initial suspicion is that we need to preserve a distinction between the work of art (the finished form, clearly a thing of artifice, in contradistinction to the "real" world) and the process of art (which goes on endlessly and is real). No matter how self-reflexive or thought-provoking a work of metafiction is, it has to stand or fall by its integrity as a thing. Coover's "The Babysitter" is undeniably well made. When fiction becomes not an artifact, but an amorphous stream of association without beginning or end (again, recent Barth seems to me a good example), it is self-indulgent. I'm not sure that's a distinction I can absolutely defend, but it seems a good place to begin an evaluation of the kind you're recommending.

Furthermore, it seems clear to me that what many people dislike about metafiction is the fact that it doesn't wear its moral or ethical values on its sleeve and often seems nihilistic in its celebration of aesthetic highjinks above all (John Gardner's On Moral Fiction is of course the classic example of this assessment). I'd say this is a false dichotomy, because metafiction can be interested in questions of ethics and morals as well as aesthetics. It's just that in their desire to defend themselves against philistinism, not many practicing metafictionists seem to have drawn attention to their engagement with such questions. ...

posted by amberglow 08 January | 18:09

amro:
ag - Well, he becomes an abolitionist at the end, right? But then slavery happens again in Sonmi's time. He becomes "awakened" like Sonmi did to slavery.

amberglow:
And don't they all have awakenings of one sort or another? and isn't there hope in that?

I think that there keeps being hope at the individual level, but at the societal level it's more depressing. Again with the cyclic nature of suppression. But I'm not sure where to take that idea. Is there *ever* hope to change society? Permanently, I mean?

posted by gaspode 08 January | 18:10

they totally got canny--it's the perfect word. so then i ask why, and to what purpose? to get themselves out of a jam? as a necessary tool for survival? for security? etc?

posted by amberglow 08 January | 18:10

it seems clear to me that what many people dislike about metafiction is the fact that it doesn't wear its moral or ethical values on its sleeve and often seems nihilistic in its celebration of aesthetic highjinks above all

Maybe a false dichotomy, but this self-conscious writing was certainly distracting to me.

posted by amro 08 January | 18:11

(Have fun, guys - I have to head out - I'll check in later.)

posted by amro 08 January | 18:13

gas: i guess i'd say not in this lifetime. sonmi is a sort of goddess to later people, and you could say that the continued existence of each story in a different form in the next story says there is hope as long as there's continuation or persistence?

posted by amberglow 08 January | 18:13

or that it's just us banging our heads against a wall, over and over, etc? (or Orwell's boot stomping on a face, forever?)

posted by amberglow 08 January | 18:15

Sonmi is like Jesus (duh), in that she dared to stand up and say how nice it would be if we could all get along. And as the champion of the "Civ'lize" side, she was deified. The reason things keep getting bleaker and bleaker is that fewer and fewer people are standing up to make a difference. When someone does, they become something of a saint (or famous, as Luisa Rey and Cavendish). Paradoxically, the deification of these individuals leads others to be less and less indivdualistic, and facilitates their subjugation.

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 18:23

so then we're back where we started, i guess (which is way depressing)

posted by amberglow 08 January | 18:50

Well, isn't the point to make yourself the hero of your own individual story, and not rely on others (Meronym or Sonmi, for Zachry) to do it for you?

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 18:52

Funny, i never thought that it was reincarnation. I did notice the recurring birthmark etc, but it seemed tobe more like connections or resonances, or even like a hole of the needle thats sewing the sections together. I think reincarnation is too strong a word for this.

I didnt know what to make of the matryoshka trick. Half the time i thought it was too gimmicky and the other half, i felt it worked. I think that if you take it section by section it's quite OK, but not especially great (except maybe the forbisher part) but as a whole its better than the parts.

posted by dhruva 08 January | 19:34

The masks part was just before he got back on the ship. He fell down some hole. Wednesday 13th November - about three pages in.

"My eyes adjusted to the gloom ... First one, then ten then hundreds of faces emerged from the perpetual dim, adzed by idolaters into bark"

posted by seanyboy 08 January | 19:35

I thought the book was clever, and entertaining enough, but certainly not the hot shit that all the reviewers were making it out to be.

posted by matildaben 08 January | 19:40

I liked it. But then I'm biased toward intersecting stories, and I'm one of the few people I know who loved Riddley Walker, so although Zachary's language is nowhere near as deftly done, I didn't find it a difficult slog.

At the end of the Cloud Atlas article and interview in the Washington Post, David Mitchell says that what distinguishes this book from his others is its conscience. He goes on to say " I think this is because I am now a dad. I need the world to last another century and a half, not just see me to happy old age."

It wouldn't surprise me if elements of the book had been floating around separately for a while. I'm thinking particularly of Frobisher. As someone pointed out, his sections seem to be the most happily written. He's also an odd man out; he produces a magnificent sextet, but he's not in any way a fighter against injustice; people are, on the whole, reasonably decent to him, and his struggles are not with Society but with his own nature.

He does, however, observe that some people (such as his own brother, killed thirteen years earlier) are called by history to take part in difficult times, and others aren't; perhaps that's Mitchell's way of saying that art - even something as abstract as orchestral music - is the struggle for some.

So I wonder if Mitchell conceived of Frobisher's character separately, liked him, and worked him into this book to give him an important job to do.

He then wrote some parallels in, particularly with Zachary. Both lost brothers they loved. Neither thought of himself as virtuous. Zachary isn't the comet-wearer, but he is telling Meronym's story, so I guess he's the artist, too.

posted by tangerine 08 January | 20:02

seanyboy: I didn't get that those were supposed to be the Iconry of Zachry's time. Though wasn't that on the Chatham Island, not Hawaii (where Zachry's story was set)? Or do you mean it allegorically?

dhruva: Why else did Frobisher have an irrational hatred of "quack" physicians? Why would Sonmi's sensation in the car crash dislodge a memory? I'm not saying it was or it wasn't, but it seems like we were supposed to believe it, at times. At other times (60-something Cavendish overlapping 20-something Rey), it's like we were supposed to not believe it.

Tangerine: Indeed. It seems like Frobisher is there to compose the Sextet (to be the chronicler of the story?). Also, who remembers which characters actually had the comet? Not all of the stories mentioned it. Cavendish specifically remarked that he didn't have it.

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 20:09

Eideteker, I'm not convinced that Cavendish didn't actually have the comet. He did have some kind of a birthmark, but he saw himself as so straight-up and unfanciful that even if he had had a comet mark, he probably would have denied it.

posted by tangerine 08 January | 20:24

But he may not have been a reincarnation, if you subscribe to that theory. Maybe, like Zachry, his 'job' was to get the Luisa Rey story out to the people. Since he arguably 'lived' at the same time as she. But I still say reincarnation was a red herring.

Who else didn't have the mark (or never mentioned it)? I seem to remember only 3-4 of them having the mark.

At any rate, the point is still in the personal responsibility.

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 20:32

I was ambivalent about the book - I also thought the structure was too gimmicky, and, as has been noted above, the reincarnation theme doesn't hold with Luisa Rey (imho the weakest chapter) and Cavendish being co-existent (alive at the same time.) That was kind of a drag because it's an interesting idea - Katherine Kerr has written a cycle of 12 fantasy novels that use reincarnation centrally with, to me, a lot more success. The central theme of Cloud Atlas seemed to me to be more about power than greed; greed for power, yes, but generally the messge that power corrupts; absolute power, as in Sonmi's world, corrupts absolutely.

There are a couple points I'm interested in that I don't think anyone has talked about yet: geographically, why is it set in the places that it is? I think it makes almost a perfect circumnavigation but I don't have a globe & am too lazy to try to look it up - but going from New Zealand (with Ewing then going on to Hawaii) to Belgium to California to Korea to Hawaii & back again; it's an interesting choice of circuits.

Environmentally it's interesting too - Ewing's character is in an unspoiled world, and he keeps mentioning that: clear water, etc. Sonmi's is an ecological nightmare, but Zachry's isn't that much better - people die young; life is hard. Through the whole thing life possibilities seem to keep on getting narrower; Ewing could do anything, really, go anywhere; there's no physical restraints on him so much, only societal. When I was reading his part I kept thinking about the mutiny on the Bounty, Gauguin & others who basically went native in the Tahitian Islands. I thought the mention he made in the second half of Ewing's story about the kid who seems to be doing just that was interesting - same age as Zachry in the beginning of his story.

Anyway it seems that as time progresses it's not only society keeping people in line - in one job & one place - it's also the continuing and worsening ecological disaster, which is linked in the Luisa Rey story really clearly to power and greed, and then in the Cavendish story to corporations, as in Sonmi's world; TicketLord (I liked that ;-)) runs the ticketing for the railroads but another corporation runs the trains, and they don't communicate.

posted by mygothlaundry 08 January | 20:44

Funny, i never thought that it was reincarnation. I did notice the recurring birthmark etc, but it seemed tobe more like connections or resonances, or even like a hole of the needle thats sewing the sections together. I think reincarnation is too strong a word for this.

There was an awful lot of talk about reincarnation in the book. The start of the Luisa Rey story had a groovy 60's dialogue about past lives, and Sonmi-451 had a conversation with the Abbess about reincarnation. Then there were various shared memories.

Why is Zachry the protagonist in Meronym's era? Is he any less important than Meronym? I think he's trying to show the reincarnation thing is a red herring; it's about everyone's impact on everyone else. And amro, you've encapsulated that nicely with the idea of the author's impact. Thanks.
posted by Eideteker 08 January | 17:41

The red herring theory does seem more and more likely to me the more we talk about it. Which I find annoying.

posted by agropyron 08 January | 23:01

Either he changed his mind halfway through, or he wanted to emphasize that we're all the same, whether clearly linked (or the same person via reincarnation). Anyone can be the "protagonist" of the story, by the mere act of telling it.

posted by Eideteker 08 January | 23:22

it's about everyone's impact on everyone else

but is it? or about their non-impact, until rediscovered in the next part?

posted by amberglow 08 January | 23:25

or non-impact in their own time and story, i mean.

posted by amberglow 08 January | 23:27

Well, perceived impotence in the present leads a number of people to give up, not realizing that they may have an impact felt only in the future. Adam Ewing and Sonmi realize this. Luisa to a lesser extent (more concerned with the immediate threat of the plant kerploding). Frobisher realizes this when writing his sextet, though paradoxically kills himself, saying he had nothing left to give.

posted by Eideteker 09 January | 00:08

hmm, so we have Adam Ewing, Luisa Rey, and Sonmi, who deliberately choose to work for the future; interleaved with them we also have Frobisher and Cavendish, who create art that inspires or at least comforts members of the other group.

With Zachry and Meronym we have both types coexisting in one story.

About reincarnation: I don't think it's either an assertion or a deliberate red herring. It just sits there in a welter of coincidences as a possibility to consider.

posted by tangerine 09 January | 00:39

(this is a good discussion, no?) : >

posted by amberglow 09 January | 08:56

I certainly am enjoying myself, if that's what you mean. Thanks again for moderating.

posted by Eideteker 09 January | 16:28

It was (is?) lots of fun. Thanks amberglow and Eideteker.

posted by amro 09 January | 17:57

Now everyone comment in reverse order, completing unfinished thoughts in your original comments. Boom, matroishka book club thread.

posted by agropyron 09 January | 20:23

Now everyone comment in reverse order, completing unfinished thoughts in your original comments. Boom, matroishka book club thread.

Personally, I find it inconceivable that this agropyron person is the reincarnation of the previous commenter, "amro." A bit too new-agey for me.

amro: you're welcome.

posted by Eideteker 09 January | 21:08

*races to getaway car being driven by amro, hiding documents under coat. goes to cheapo motel, gets room, opens door and sees Sonmi in a halo of light. lightblub blows and it's just Eideteker with a glowstick...*

posted by amberglow 10 January | 01:15

The first story's "masks" were dendroglyphs, or rather carvings done right on the trees.

It seemed like a cautionary tale for these times. Georgie as the devil. Consumption as religion. Genetic engineering...

I think "Sloosha's Crossin' an' Ev'rythin' After" is highlighting the fact that one person's act of courage can have greater effects... Meronym is the comet-person, but she raises the narrator's consciousness and he in turn is passing down Truth to others. Just as the archivist might be influenced by Sonmi (and certainly her readers will be). Adam Ewing's son will understand why his father is willing to risk his safety to fight slavery and his journal is being published.

Some of my thoughts:

None of the characters truly acted alone. No matter who got the glory or fame, all had helpers/supporters/rescuers.

Each person had a witness/confidant who made sure the story was passed on.

People with power use the weak as pawns.

Slavery is wrong, no matter how it's justified.

What one believes is possible, shapes the reality of what is possible.

All of the characters used and faced deception at some point or another.

Though the narrator may have been weak compared to others in their stories, the records passed on to future generations get to shape history/society/etc. (and therefore have a greater effect than any individual bad guy)

Some bits that stood out to me:

The actual past is brittle, ever dimming + ever more problematic to access + reconstruct: in contrast, the virtual past is malleable, ever-brightening + ever more difficult to circumvent/expose as fraudulent.

Times are you say a person's b'liefs ain't true, they think you're sayin' their lifes ain't true an' their truth ain't true.

Middle-age is flown, but it is attitude, not years, that condems one to the ranks of the Undead, or else proffers salvation. In the domain of the young there dwells many an Undead soul. They rush about so, their inner putrefraction is concealed for a few decades, that is all.

A life spent shaping a world I want Jackson to inherit, not one I fear Jackson shall inherit, this strikes me as a life worth the living.

And while I missed the discussion, I had hoped to participate. After reading the thread, I'm still not sure what I think of this format for "discussion" of a book.

posted by MightyNez 10 January | 12:09

thanks, Mighty...what do you suggest for the next one, formatwise? (we're all in different time zones, so irc wouldn't work)

Though the narrator may have been weak compared to others in their stories, the records passed on to future generations get to shape history/society/etc. (and therefore have a greater effect than any individual bad guy)
Except that the records passed on are corrupted and mediated and not the actual events, too--something i think is important, and about fictions in general. Luisa's story is a novel, Cavendish is a movie, etc. Only with Adam and Frobisher was it actually their words, no?

posted by amberglow 10 January | 12:36

Nez: Your comments are appreciated at any time in the discussion. I know there was talk of making the book club discussions a sidebar feature. I am going to add this one to the Wiki right now, before I forget.

Please make any format suggestions you have, as well.

posted by Eideteker 10 January | 14:53

amberglow, I think Somni's interview counts as "in her own words" as well.

I've been thinking about different ways to structure the discussion, but can't come up with any better than the current. Hrmmm.

posted by gaspode 10 January | 15:40

Maybe on the wiki next time? With a link in the sidebar?

posted by matildaben 10 January | 15:42

Eh. How about a link to the wiki page on the sidebar?

posted by Eideteker 10 January | 16:05

There may be some helpful format suggestions and examples here (to tell you the truth I haven't looked at the link too carefully, yet).

posted by amro 10 January | 17:08

maybe we should do some of these tips? (very general tho, and not too helpful)

on that site, it says to schedule discussions tho--maybe we should do that? (some time/day the most of us can participate?)

posted by amberglow 10 January | 19:31

Except that the records passed on are corrupted and mediated and not the actual events, too--something I think is important, and about fictions in general. Luisa's story is a novel, Cavendish is a movie, etc. Only with Adam and Frobisher was it actually their words, no?

But what records aren't modified and corrupted/mediated? There is no "pure" historical record of anything. We don't know that Sonmi's recording hasn't been tampered with—remember how many times false records were mentioned in Sonmi's time? Even Sonmi asks why the corpocracy maintains all these archives when people aren't allowed to view the contents. Adam Ewing's Journal has also been edited by his son (recall the occassional remark here and there?) Every single story has been passed on to others, so we don't really know what's pure, and I think the notes of Isaac Sachs from section 41 of Half-lives is valuable here. [My book's from Sceptre, so I don't know if page numbers would match, so I just went with the 41 chapter/page/section]

Basically, all time (perception of) is messed with by the present. The past is used by present power to reinforce/justify its own message. The future is our own imaginings, but will also unfold regardless of our imaginings. Because we don't have "pure" access to the past, then it is also kind of our imaginings... so only the present is real, and our imaginings... perhaps why the enlightened characters are willing to risk their lives for the future of humanity or what-not. One mustn't justify present injustice for the sake of an imagined future good, and yet, because our imaginings influence actual events, we need to imagine better futures than what we're given as inevitable.

One interesting thing, however, is that we are told by Cavendish that the goofy reincarnation stuff has to go, but in what we have actually read, the comet and feelings of reincarnation are present. Perhaps there were more references to that which we are not privy to, or perhaps we haven't been given the same stories that the later characters are reading... but this, unfortunately, is not untrue of our history in general.

posted by MightyNez 10 January | 21:11

The wiki might work better at keeping ideas together, and would be easier for stragglers to come in and participate/add something in a logical place.

I think I'd have really liked a pre-discussion thread with no spoilers/story discussion allowed, yet adding information, links, translations, etc.

I enjoyed reading a little about the Moriori, and was trying look up unfamiliar items/phrases/etc. I enjoyed peeking at a map of the island where the first story begins, and seeing a picture of the last Moriori. It was kind of time-consuming, and I'm not the fastest of readers anyway, so I stopped that kind of stuff after moving on to the next story, though. I'm a visual person, so I had to see what a dendroglyph was, and then it was interesting seeing the dress of Maori and Moriori, etc. If anyone else does this, it might have been nice to see a collection of small, relevant pictures... or even words/phrases that tickled/stumped readers... I think the benefit of having a group discussion is so we can learn from each other and explore more than we might as individuals.

posted by MightyNez 10 January | 21:22

If someone edits/adds something later at the wiki, that could get very confusing if things get out of order. I'm not sure what you want in your prediscussion thread. Can you give some examples?

posted by Eideteker 11 January | 00:38

But what records aren't modified and corrupted/mediated? There is no "pure" historical record of anything.

You're right, but then there's the thing about each story unfolding as it unfolds only to be mediated later. Cavendish's story was his story, and in the next story was a movie telling his story. Was it a movie all along, or his story first? Luisa too, etc...

posted by amberglow 11 January | 01:10

← Metachat Trivia: || Jessica →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN