The Sword and Laser discussion

Why did the author include the birthmarks on the protagonists in the story? The characters weren't related. I didn't get that the birthmarks had an actual function in the story other than to (weakly) tie the main characters together!

What do you guys think?

The birthmark is the physical signifier of the mystical subplot. While not specifically stated, the implication is all the characters with this birthmark are essentially the same soul being continuously reincarnated and playing out the same patterns.

Apparently the movie version goes one step further and implies that it's not one soul, but a whole group of them continuously replaying the same mistakes of selfishness and struggle.

It's an interesting idea, but I think it's unnecessary. The actual linking of the stories seem to work well enough without the mystical mumbo-jumbo.

I agree, for me at least, the birthmarks didn't add anything to the story. I mean, the story would have been just as good without the birthmarks.

The implication of the resurrected soul is interesting though. I didn't think of that when I read it.

It reminds me a lot of Kim Stanley Robinsons Years of Rice and Salt which played with the same concept: instead of birthmarks each character had their name start with the same letter

This came up a bit in the Renegade Read thread. Most of us felt that the reincarnation bit was unnecessary, but I felt more like Olivia and didn't mind it.

Olivia wrote: "If it had been present but never discussed directly I would have enjoyed it much more."

At the very least, it wouldn't have drawn attention to when the reincarnation bit falls apart.

I agree that the birthmark was unnecessary, and since it lacked subtlety, I thought it was the worst part of the story.

The birthmark aside, (view spoiler)[is there anything that supports the idea the characters are reincarnations? For example, the characters don't share characteristics. Memories from the past life? There's no evidence of karma at work is there?

It makes me think that either the reincarnation business was an afterthought, or the birthmark is a red herring, that this story isn't about reincarnation. (hide spoiler)]

Probably unnecessary, but edited to add spoiler

Jeff wrote: "The birthmark aside, is there anything that supports the idea the characters are reincarnations..."

There were some clues such as Luisa Rey (view spoiler)[feeling like she had heard the Cloud Atlas sextet before or Frobisher standing over a sleeping Ayrs and experiencing a sense of jamais vu, referencing the moment Zachry slits the throat of the sleeping Kona sentry in the future.

Although, now that I think of it, Zachry wasn't the one with the birthmark. If the birthmark is the physical clue that tells the readers that this is the reincarnated soul of the previous person with the same birthmark, then Meronym, not Zachry, would have been the reincarnation of Frobisher. Maybe the birthmark is a red herring as you say and Zachry is the future Frobisher since Frobisher had that moment of jamais vu, fore-calling that moment for which only Zachry was present. (hide spoiler)]

Ack! Now I'm all befuddled again.

Edited to add spoiler tags.

Cattfish wrote: "It reminds me a lot of Kim Stanley Robinsons Years of Rice and Salt which played with the same concept: instead of birthmarks each character had their name start with the same letter"

True, but in the case of Years of Rice and Salt I would agrue it was more overt and honestly done better than Cloud Atlas. I'd say both on the story telling side as well as the re-incarnation side.

Are they supposed to be reincarnations? There are some "this seems weirdly familiar" moments that they comment on. But Cavendish couldn't have been born Luisa's death (both are roughly in the present - his story can't be more than 40 years after the end of Luisa's, and he's presented as much older than that).

It seems like the connection is much more mysterious and undefined. Someone suggested "many worlds" as a better grid, and that makes more sense to me. That is, if we have to explain it, the birthmark characters are something like alternate versions in alternate worlds (which also accounts better for the questions about some of the nested stories possibly being fictional).

But then again, Frobisher & Luisa seem to have been in the same world - so maybe that explanation doesn't work either...

Ryan wrote: "Are they supposed to be reincarnations? There are some "this seems weirdly familiar" moments that they comment on. But Cavendish couldn't have been born Luisa's death (both are roughly in the prese..."

I could be wrong, but I thought Cavendish mentions in the second half of his story that (view spoiler)[ Luisa is a fictional story. (hide spoiler)]

I think the birthmarks were there to just thump us over the head with the thought of reincarnation and the stories connecting. There were other hints throughout even with a section of Somni's story talking about Buddha. I really think the story could have done without the overused birthmark thing and still had connections people could follow.

I finished the book last night, and have been tossing it back and forth for most of today. One thought I have re: the birthmark is that it doesn't signify the same soul; it signifies what we, the readers, consider "civilization." (view spoiler)[ Consider: Who has the birthmark in each story? It's the supposedly "civilized, progressive" individual: Ewing, Frobisher, Luisa, Cavendish, Somni, Meronym - though the last two might not be considered "progressive" since civilization is definitely on the decline in those two stories.

I think this analogy breaks down slightly when applying it to Frobisher's story, but after considering it for a while, I think it still applies, though probably more loosely than in the other stories. Frobisher represents a "changing of the guard," musically at any rate; failed out of college, disowned by his family, constantly compared to his dead brother - and yet, possessed of undeniable talent. Indeed, if his letters are accurate, much of Ayrs's renaissance as a composer is due to Frobisher's influence and work. (hide spoiler)]

Michael wrote: "I finished the book last night, and have been tossing it back and forth for most of today. One thought I have re: the birthmark is that it doesn't signify the same soul; it signifies what we, the ..."
Nice observation, but I'm wary of the words "civilized" or "progressive." What do you think about saying the birthmark indicates the character who represents the oppressed individual who has to struggle against an oppressor? I think it's even easier to fit Frobisher in this way.

I guess I fall on the pro-birthmark side of the argument. I was on the fence until Sloosha's Crossin' but there are some really interesting bits on the reincarnation theme in there. (view spoiler)[ First, I love that the script gets flipped and it's not the main character, Zachry, who's the reincarnated soul with the birthmark, but Meronym instead. In addition to that surprise, while Zachry firmly believes in reincarnation, Meronym is an atheist, and I enjoyed the irony of that.

Also, when deciding whether to kill the sleeping Kona soldier, Zachry makes an interesting statement on reincarnation and, I think, suggests that the sleeping soldier could be a future reincarnation of his soul: "If I'd been rebirthed a Kona in this life, he could be me an' I'd be killin' myself." Maybe that explains the seeming overlap in the Luisa/Cavendish stories. Maybe souls don't operate by our laws of time and space. Maybe you're reincarnated soul can be reborn before you actually die. Then again, I could just be vastly misinterpreting Zachry's words. Sloosha's Crossin' is, after all, not the easiest read. (hide spoiler)]

well, i was debating in opening a new thread or continuing in this one cause i have several doubts about the birthmark and the reincarnation theory based on the movie's casting. Specially the casting of Tom Hank's characters from Sloosha's and Adam Ewing's, as in the book i dont think it is stated that they are the same "soul". it opens up a lot of questions about which characters also reincarnate.

also Erick's comment about the anachronistic debacle of Luisa Rey and Tim Cavendish bothered me.

the birthmark didnt bothered me specially since i dont think i was mentioned in Timothy's story and zachry being the narrator (and protagonist, on the last story)

victor wrote: "well, i was debating in opening a new thread or continuing in this one cause i have several doubts about the birthmark and the reincarnation theory based on the movie's casting. Specially the casti..."

Timothy actually does mention his birthmark when he is reading Luisa's story in Aurora House.

victor wrote: "well, i was debating in opening a new thread or continuing in this one cause i have several doubts about the birthmark and the reincarnation theory based on the movie's casting."

Not sure what you mean by "reincarnation theory." Mitchell himself said on "Bookclub" on BBC Radio that, "Literally all of the main characters, except one, are reincarnations of the same soul in different bodies throughout the novel identified by a birthmark...that's just a symbol really of the universality of human nature. The title itself "Cloud Atlas," the cloud refers to the ever changing manifestations of the Atlas, which is the fixed human nature which is always thus and ever shall be. So the book's theme is predacity, the way individuals prey on individuals, groups on groups, nations on nations, tribes on tribes. So I just take this theme and in a sense reincarnate that theme in another context..." (I took that from the Wikipedia page that cited the Bookclub episode).

The movie casting I'm sure has taken some artistic license. I wonder how involved Mitchell was allowed to be with the casting and production in general.

terpkristin: by that i meant not that the main character (except one) reincarnates, but that many people reincarnate somewhat simultaneously, and what exactly went into deciding which characters reincarnated into which other, since that (apart from the birthmark) is never really specified.

The birthmark signifies a game changer, someone who goes beyond what is seen as normal, socially acceptable, morally right and shows others that we can help others no matter the cost to ourselves. They are the brightest and best shooting stars guiding others to the future. Don't just take it from me. http://teabookstravelandmovies.blogsp...