Cloud Atlas

Again, this seems to be a book which grabbed many critics because science fiction is great but most critics don't read it. So when sci-fi somehow wanders on to the approved reading list of people who think they are generally ABOVE sci-fi, they say "Hey, this is really creative!"

I can't tell you how many people warned me about how challenging this book is to read. Yeah, not so much. Try keeping track of the all reincarnations in the Years of Rice and Salt.

I'm having many of the same reactions to this book as I did to the movie Interstellar. As modern literature goes, it's good. But as sci-fi goes, it's meh.

I really dislike text in future "patois." Look, I don't read Chaucerian English either, so I understand that language drifts over time. But why would anything uttered a 500 years from now be more intelligible to me than Chaucerian English? So futzing around with 20 percent of the language to make it seem futuristic is just annoying.

Having already seen the movie adaption before reading the novel did probably spoil most of the fun for me, as I already knew about the major ways, in which the six stories are interconnected. I also liked the way in which the movie hops in a round-robin manner between the six stories, which places a stronger emphasis on the eclectic aesthetics of the work than the actual book does. Probably this would not have worked out that well in written form, so in general there is nothing to say against the inlay-style (or pyramidic structure, or Matryoshka doll style) which M. chose to intertwine the six texts in the novel.

The book employs loads of self and cross references, which appears to me as the old postmodern trick, that keeps the reader's attention by making you feel smrt and well-read. Some of these references are sufficiently subtle, others come as broad in-your-face hints. The allusion to "Fahrenheit 451" in the protagonist's name in "An Orison of Sonmi~451" feels OK as a nod to Ray Bradbury's famous dystopia, but that Sonmi~451 requests the works of Huxley and Orwell from the library, appears to me like a very dull way to make sure, that absolutely no reader misses the reference to 20th century dystopian literature.

I found the recurring topics in the stories very interesting, especially the various aspects of the objectification of human beings which starts with the colonial view of native tribes, recurs for example as the "undead" in the Aurora house and finds its most extreme expression in the Sonmi~451 story.

Where I felt disappointed as a reader was the quality of the plot or better "the plots" in plural, as each story is unbearably loaded with clichés. Even the Somni~451 story, which I find the strongest in terms of imagination, concludes in the inevitable "unforeseen twist".

A good part of this is presented by M. as intentional, as the quality of some stories is also object to self-reference in the book, when f.e. Tim Cavendish reviews the Luisa Rey pulp novel or when Robert Frobisher is criticizing the writing style of the "Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing". The same holds for the novel itself, as M. let's Frobisher ask the question, if the structure of the "Cloud Atlas Sextet" was "revolutionary or gimmicky?". Has M. intentionally and masterly tuned each story to just the precise level of lameness that he needed for his composition? Or was this a clever move by the author to avoid foreseeable criticism?

What the hell? I don't get why this book is so highly rated. It's an enjoyable enough read but it definitely did not blow me away. Yeah, yeah, the stories are connected, inhabited by the same soul throughout time, based on, ahem, a comet shaped birthmark. Okay, cool, I can dig it. But the stories really weren't connected all that well, mostly just stand alone short stories, written in differing genres, for example, historical, sci-fi, post apocalyptic fictions, etc... with a clue thrown into the current story to let you know how the story connected to the one before. But the clue was just kind of shoe horned in there, as an aside, and really had nothing to do with the plot of the current story. I guess the idea was pretty original, but the execution was weak, IMHO of course. The stories just didn't seem connected to each other as far as I was concerned. The underlying common theme, as far as I understand it, is man will always strive to be superior to someone else, to enslave someone else for whatever reason. So, as far as there is this inherent "weakness" in the genetic code of humans, this selfishness if you will, there is also this inherent "goodness", this selflessness as well. An undeniable force of will in a human, will compel him/her to strive to rise above tyranny, to make the world a better place, to have one's life make a difference, a connection to future generations. Okay, yeah. Not a ground breaking assertion. But there you have it.

"Cloud Atlas" by David Mitchell is an overwhelming book. It plays upon all your senses, using its interrelated stories to tell a large story of human society and existence that is creative, witty, and engaging on multiple levels.

One of the most challenging aspects of writing a review for this book is to say what it is about. The novel presents six interrelated stories in six different styles (a journal, a series of letters, a pulpy mystery novel, a stream-of-consciousness memoir, testimony of a condemned prisoner, and an oral story). The stories have common elements that are sometimes obvious but sometimes hidden and only become clear as the stories unfold. Each story is a virtuoso performance and read like different creative works all together.

The central theme of the stories (if there is one) is that "human hunger creates civilization, but it also destroys it." It is fascinating to see this theme play out in different time periods and with different individuals in different locations, testifying to the idea that no matter how much our contexts change, the human experience remains the same.

I've added this book to the top of my favorites list for a few reasons. First, its sheer creativity and its narrative power. Second, reading such diverse and divergent stories was a sensory experience that engaged my mind in unexpected ways. Third, it is a book that I found myself noting memorable and well-written quotes and passages. Fourth, it is a book that I plan on returning to again in the near future (well worth multiple reads). But finally, it is now one of my favorite books because it has much to say about our society and what it means to be human. You will not look at time, history, culture, and society in the same way after you read this book.

NOTE: I have seen the 2012 film of the novel and I also recommend it as well. The novel is more detailed and more finely drawn but the film will, I believe, become a landmark in the development of cinema. And like a good film adaptation, it does not attempt to copy the book word for word but provide an "impressionist" view of the narrative, making the film its own creature.