SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

What are your final thoughts? I thought this book was more gimmick than substance and not really worth all the hype it had.

Agree, Kim. It felt very constructed/crafted--well done, but not really passionate or engaging for me.

I disagree with Kim and Carol. It was packed with humanity and that was what mattered, that was what drove it, through iteration after iteration: that is what stays with me. The wrapping and structure were the icing laced throughout the cake.

Yeah, I was bored too. The only entertaining sections belonged to Timothy Cavendish. The author actually engaged me. There was momentary enjoyment and even a little laughter. What came before and after was pure meh.

I liked some stories more than other and just never fully connected. I liked the Movie better, which is unusual for me.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, although I preferred some stories over others. Cavendish made me laugh really hard and I loved Meeks rallying cry in the pub. I did think the whole thing was really well done and I loved the construction. A few of the stories were kind of "meh" for me.

I can see this being the kind of book that I would want to keep around and just read a little bit here and there. It was easy to appreciate but it wasn't totally compelling. I've been at a loss to explain that I value the book highly but can only give it 3 stars.

I gave up at the 2/3 mark. None of the stories held much interest for me, and it seemed like the only reason they were connected in a single novel was so that Mitchell could masturbate over his brilliance of switching from voice to voice.

Definite no from me :P

I agree with Kim, Liam, and Carol. I wasn't exactly bored, but I felt ripped off and was angry. I never felt any heart or soul - just the cleverness.

As I said in my review on LM:

At least the author does reveal that he knows he's relying on gimmick. I can't tell, however, whether he's sniggering, or whether he really does think this book to be an accomplishment.

That is to say, is Cavendish's commentary or Forbisher's the more relevant to Mitchell's work?

TC: "The First Luisa Rey Mystery... would be a better book if Hilary V. Hush weren't so artsily-fartsily Clever. She had written it in neat little chapteroids, doubtless with one eye on the the Hollywood screenplay."

RF: "Spent the fortnight... reworking my year's fragments into a 'sextet for overlapping soloists'.... In the first set, each solo is interrupted by its successor; in the second, each interruption is recontinued, in order. Revolutionary or gimmicky? Shan't know until it's finished...."

What are we to make of the note that RF committed suicide and that TC's story does end on a more optimistic note?

2nd question:

And are any of our 'good' men's efforts worth anything, given that the ultimate nature of the human race, accd to Mitchell, means that we will always be more driven to cause misery than joy?

Or are we to put all our faith in the last 1% of the book, in which AE says, "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."

I struggled to get into it a first, then I was caught up in some of the stories.

My final verdict was the the book was good, but not great.

My favorite story was Somni's tale.

I just finished and I’m disappointed. As a non-native English speaker this book was quite challenging and not so rewarding. Because I read books mainly for the story, I wasn’t much moved and none of the characters made me care enough as I just didn’t spend enough time with them. Also I find the link between the stories weak. It’s like Mitchell wants to talk about everything, slaves and clones, past and present, but ends up talks about nothing, like a drop in the ocean...

This story was simply a literary version of six degrees of separation in time and space. The author did a fabulous job creating six different short stories with radically different tones, styles, and voices but, for the most part, I did not care for the people or the tone or the stories. The connection between the stories based on timelessness of art was a bit tenuous for me. I did find the Sonmi story the most interesting and would have liked to know a little more about the world in which they lived and how her influence had spread into the future. But as for the rest, it all seemed like an exercise in futility - the actions taken in the past led to the mistakes made in the present leading to the desolation of the future - then the cycle starts again (we hope). With the structure used in this book, it was depressing for me the fact that even when the protagonists make changes in their lives for the better, the future seems immutable.

Sandi wrote: "it was depressing for me the fact that even when the protagonists make changes in their lives for the better, the future seems immutable."

That's kinda where I was going with my second question. In fact, except for the very last little bit of the book, from which I took the quote from Adam Ewing, the future *ultimately* seems to get *worse* because of the good deeds of each person in each earlier time. To me, anyway.

Do any of you see that anyone actually did anything that helped in the long wrong?

I thought the idea was supposed to be about the soul evolving in a positive manner and the world getting worse.

Hmm, I thought it rather reminded me of A Canticle for Leibowitz, which that civilization is sort of circular. Human nature staying the same despite the rise and fall of industrialization.

I too felt a little let down by this book. Each story seemed to have some interest standing on its’ own, with interesting and at times poignant observations and commentary about our human condition and such. The different narrative voices and styles taken in each were certainly quite creative, but as others have pointed out, it was all perhaps a little too gimmicky and show-boaty. Where the book ultimately fell down I felt was that the stories just didn’t seem to hold together. The whole reincarnation, past lives thing and the little physical linkages that Mitchell threw in just didn’t work for me. So in the end, I never really felt connected to the book. It just wasn’t compelling.

Carol. wrote: "Hmm, I thought it rather reminded me of A Canticle for Leibowitz, which that civilization is sort of circular. Human nature staying the same despite the rise and fall of industrializa..."

Yeah, I agree. We see the base shortcomings of our human nature persisting, and if anything worsening, as the stories advance, ultimately bringing down our civilization and the individuals that struggle to overcome these shortcomings.

I have a question for everyone. I know that some people didn't like the, to use Edwin's word, gimmicky nature of the book. Since Sci-Fi is "Speculative" Fiction, I'm actually curious about why a story has to be entertaining rather than just messing with concepts?

I'll be the first one to say I love stories that focus on concepts. I absolutely love (for example) the classic pulp SF short stories that were so much 'what if' and less action or character development. I'm a big fan of Clifford D. Simak, and, after just today reading and loving Monument I want to read more idea-based stories by Lloyd Biggle Jr.

But here we have a concept of *writing* & not of *content.* *Any* literature can be written this way. The style is a gimmick, the content is (imo) bad SF. The content could as easily have been about deeper historical time periods and not gone into the future, for example.

And besides, everything has to 'entertain' on some level or in some way. (Maybe you would like to clarify what you mean by entertain?)

Compare this month's fantasy selection, In the Night Garden, for example, that is structured like a much more complex version of this. Much better book, imo. Better writing, more engaging ideas and characters, more authenticity of purpose in the puzzle gimmick, more of a joy to read.

Also, probably someone can explain to us why the gimmicky structures of Ulysses and of Marcel Proust's Remembrance of Things Past transcend the gimmick of the writing style, what is going on with the content, the ideas, that makes these books worth reading (by ppl with more patience than I have).

Sarah wrote: "I have a question for everyone. I know that some people didn't like the, to use Edwin's word, gimmicky nature of the book. Since Sci-Fi is "Speculative" Fiction, I'm actually curious about why a story has to be entertaining rather than just messing with concepts..."

Your question has a number of levels, but for me, for a story to be exceptional, it need to engage me, which is perhaps slightly different than 'entertain.' Cloud Atlas impressed me with the different styles, but when I was writing my review, I realized how much using different styles was a gimmick, and it started to feel more like a writing exercise than an integrated story. I'd agree with the others who felt there was only the thinnest thread connecting the stories. I also felt that I didn't connect with most of the characters, particularly ones from genres/styles I don't enjoy reading.

Would it have been more enjoyable/ appropriate if it was billed as a book of short stories instead of a novel?

I haven't gotten to In the Night Garden quite yet. I'm actually really curious about this. As for defining "entertain", I'm just noticing that quite a few people aren't even particularly enjoying the content. I'm wondering if the style distracted from the content because people found it irritating, or if there really is not enough content to engage people, to use a word that Carol mentioned.

Part of my curiosity is that I really enjoyed the structure and some of the stories but I found myself lukewarm about the entire book. I'm partially trying to clarify my own thoughts. Basically I'm curious. A common state for me.

So, to ask another question. I've been reading through the Ursula K Le Guin Hainish Cycle books, and I find that those also explore concepts and ideas as well. Is the difference between these two simply a matter of content?

Hmm... Well, I've not read Hainish, either, but I'm thinking that I'd usually put all elements under either style or content, and so, yes, that would be the difference. For me.

Character, plot, setting, theme, ideas & concepts - those would be content.

Structure, voice, pacing, use of allusion & metaphor - those would be style.

I have to admit that Mitchell does have style. His choice of content is primarily what doesn't suit me.

As far as 'engaging' - well, either style or content can engage, depending on the author and upon the reader. It's a great word, and I use it in my reviews often. But imo it's not quite specific enough to help us work through this question you raised.

I was not distracted by the structure of Cloud Atlas. In fact, I did actually find it engaging, at least at first. Some of the things that spoiled CA for me were the lack of a real connection between the stories, an inability to empathize with or care about the characters, and an aversion to the bleak themes.

Most significantly, I think, was the lack of heart & depth (akin to what I usually call 'resonance' in my reviews). I couldn't avoid seeing Mitchell being all 'look at me, look at what I just wrote, aren't I so clever.' I didn't feel that *he* actually cared about his characters or his ideas. Again, that's just my take, of course.

In so far as would I have liked this more as short stories or separate novellas, I think not. I don't think they could be trimmed to stories, and I don't think they stand alone as is.

Some, imo, could make decent full-length books. And that's one of the other things I couldn't help but think about as I read - were these stories each incomplete novels that Mitchell wanted to publish, but couldn't develop into real novels? Was he throwing all the leftovers in the skillet and calling it hash?

So, you see, I wasn't able to *immerse* myself in the book but instead was thinking about that other stuff. I wasn't engaged.

I see what you guys are saying now. Looking at your breakdown of content vs. style, Cheryl, made me see that the Le Guin series actually goes heavy on ideas and concepts. I think the emphasis on ideas is what makes her series something to ponder.

Cloud Atlas seems to be far more about the structure than the story. This also explains my own reaction because I thought the structure was interesting but the stories less so. But structure alone isn't really enough to give a book a high rating.

Thanks for the help ladies :)

Sarah wrote: "Since Sci-Fi is "Speculative" Fiction, I'm actually curious about why a story has to be entertaining rather than just messing with concepts?"

I mean, it has to be entertaining, otherwise why am I reading it? Even non-fiction books are entertaining in the sense that you're learning something or reading about something that interests you, you can't put out a boring book filled with uninteresting stories and say it's okay because it's conceptual.

This one mostly worked for me, despite so many blah stories. I did enjoy the build up rather than the down slope at the end.

Does anyone know anything about musical composition? I can't find what I read unfortunately, but it was talking about how he got the idea for this book from a piece of music... I found it on Wikipedia

"In an interview, Mitchell stated that the title was inspired by the piece of music of the same name by the Japanese composer Toshi Ichiyanagi, Yoko Ono’s first husband: "I bought the CD just because of that track's beautiful title." Mitchell's previous novel, Number9Dream, had also been inspired by a piece of music by Yoko Ono's more famous husband, John Lennon; Mitchell has said this fact "pleases me ... though I couldn’t duplicate the pattern indefinitely."[14]"

The reason that I ask about music is because of the use of "sextet". We have six stories here, so a sextet, but from what I (quickly) read, a sextet is a common musical structure. I was wondering if the format here may match the way a sextet is constructed. Am I making any sense? I can't read music and I'm having a hard time expressing myself. I'm wondering if there's a common pattern.

Sarah wrote: "This one mostly worked for me, despite so many blah stories. I did enjoy the build up rather than the down slope at the end.

Does anyone know anything about musical composition? I can't find wha..."

A musical sextet refers to the number of players in a 'band'/group. So a song with 'sextet' in its title would mean that it's meant to be played by six people.

The song that Frobisher was trying to make would be a sextet, for six musicians. The way he was envisioning it was that one musician would start, then get interrupted by another soloist playing over the first, and then the third, to a crescendo in the middle, and then strip away the layers one by one till the end, like the structure of the book. The movie attempted to make a song in this fashion, but it couldn't make it exactly to this specification, but here's a link to an article about that song and its audio: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2...

___

As for my thoughts on the book, I really enjoyed it. As a musician, I really enjoyed and completely felt Frobisher's emotions. Everything that was going through his head during the compositional process I could identify with. Sonomi's story was my favorite, and the Luisa Rey mystery my third pick.

Thanks Sid!

I'm glad to see so many iffy reviews. I read this a while back, long before the movie, and just hated it.

One of the reasons I hated it was because it was hard to follow. I know the writing was supposed to be "clever". But it was so "clever" it couldn't hold my attention.

The other reason that I didn't like it was because I was so excited by the concept. I actually read it right after seeing the first trailer. I felt like it was such a great idea to have these separate but connecting stories. But really I felt he missed some great opportunities. A few connections were there but they were so minor it made wonder what the point was.

This book just made me mad. You're not being clever, you're not writing good stories.

Tx for bringing up the fact that music was relevant beyond Frobisher's bit. That's interesting.... Not enough to raise my opinion of the book, but worth thinking about.

I think my expectations were too high going into the book--I thought it was good, and enjoyed reading it, but didn't think it was amazing. I liked the puzzle of finding out how each story fit into the others, and I liked almost all of the sections. But I agree with most of the discussion that I wasn't a fan of how disjointed the stories were compared to how I expected them to fit together more.

Flash Beagle wrote: "I disagree with Kim and Carol. It was packed with humanity and that was what mattered, that was what drove it, through iteration after iteration: that is what stays with me. The wrapping and stru..."

I totally agree, Flash Beagle. I stumbled a little getting started but then couldn't put it down. Every storyline hooked me. Even unlikable narrators like Frobisher and Cavendish. And I loved what I think is called metafictional aspect, where each section is actually a fiction within a fiction. Ewing's journal, Frobisher's letters, the Luisa Rey mystery, Cavendish's ordeal, and the orison of Sonmi. Then Sloosha's crossing being retold around a fire in the dystopian (but I choose to think ultimately redemptive) future.

I was utterly amazed at Mitchell's ability to change voice for each section. "Literary" tricksy it might be, but he is a master. Evoke 19th century gentlemen, check. Evoke futuristic robot, check. And so on for post-jazz age cynic, frumpy contemporary editor, slick mystery genre fiction, check. Create a consistent "new language" for Sloosha, check. (Although for envisioning what English might sound like after a game-changing holocaust, see Riddley Walker. Imagine a shift in the English we speak like from Chaucer to Shakespeare, and that's what Riddley speaks.)

In fact, I liked CA so much that I immediately sat down to read The Bone Clocks (near future then post not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper society) which has a much more linear structure and I also found un-put-downable.

Bottom line: the guy can write. I was enraptured and moved.

BTW, his characters reappear in multiple books, and someone with too much time on their hands has charted it here: http://www.vulture.com/2014/08/david-...

I'm generally a proponent of reading the book first. But in this case, I happened to see the movie first--it was how I got turned on to the book. And I'm very glad I did it in that order.

The movie, imperfect though it was, introduced me to the structure of the book and, via the way the actors reappeared from one section to the next, emphasized the idea of connection between the sections. Possibly overemphasized it, but that worked for me. Intrigued me enough to make me want to read the book, and helped me through the potentially confusing or dull bits when I did pick up the book.

And had I read the book first, I would have been really upset at what was done with some of the characters in the movie. So there was that.

Both were flawed, the movie even more than the book. And yes, the author clearly thinks a lot of his own cleverness--but he's not entirely unjustified. I didn't love every bit of the book, but I loved it. I've just begun The Bone Clocks and am hoping it's half as good!

Shelley wrote: "I was utterly amazed at Mitchell's ability to change voice for each section. "Literary" tricksy it might be, but he is a master. ..."

I couldn't have summarised it better. He fully inhabited each of his story arcs so much that I believe the man could write any genre he sets his mind to. His mastery of the little nuances that give prose a distinct time, place, atmosphere and identity is something I aspire to.

Did it live up to your expectations?

My dad gave it to me years ago, with the advice to read each part straight through rather than in order 😆

I absolutely loved this book. It felt so imaginative and fun. Unlike a lot of “literary” sci-fi it also didn’t come off as pretentious or overly obsessed with itself. I enjoyed this one quite a bit. My favorite part was the thread in the 19th century.

It took me a long time to finish this one - about a year if I recall correctly. I took my time just so I could fully absorb Mitchell's terrific prose, often re-reading entire sections just for the enjoyment of reading the words again. Not many books I feel that way about - maybe Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West by Cormac McCarthy is another that springs to mind.

Also, I very much enjoyed the movie version, even though I was skeptical that anyone could bring the book to life on the big screen.

I struggled with this one, although I'm glad I ultimately finished it. Part of the problem was that I found each successive story less compelling than the one which came before, and the one in the middle was just plain irritating (compounded by the fact that, listening to the audiobook as I was, the weird language was even harder to follow).
Most of the stories were pretty good as standalones, although I found the structure of the book an annoyance rather than an enhancement.

I really enjoyed this one. The structure of the nested stories was really cool. I thought the birthmark thing a little bit weird and didn't totally work, but I like how the stories overlapped and each of the characters was grappling with something from one of the other stories.

I enjoyed Mitchell's creation of six stand-alone worlds, each with their own voices. I was amused and entertained by each of the main characters. I particularly enjoyed the tiny details that rippled through the stories, reminding the reader that this is one cohesive story.

Quite a nice change also to read some literary fiction with my sci fi. Lit fic was my go-to for many years before I got serious about reading sci fi, and this was a nice break from all the 'genre fiction' I've been reading for the past several years.