MashableReads discussion

We're thrilled to announce The Bone Clocks as our next official MashableReads selection!

Throughout the novel, readers follow Holly Sykes, a rebellious teen living in 1980s England. When Holly runs away from home, she unearths a not-entirely-human conspiracy and sets off a chain of events, traveling from Holly's 1980s England to 2004 Baghdad and back to the United Kingdom to land in a post-"Endarkment" Ireland in 2043.

Let us know what you think of the book here. Happy Reading!

For me what really makes The Bone Clocks sing is the theme of connection. Everything is connected ... this is something that permeates all of Mitchell's books in a way (the theory of his Über novel should be its own separate discussion!). Also, cause and effect from those ties. What we experience and then decide to do matters.

We see this best in Cloud Atlas where acts of cruelty and kindness have consequences that ripple across time and space. Above the din of the genre action and plotting, The Bone Clocks has major events set into motion by small acts, often unseen and unheard, or sometimes quickly "redacted" from conscious memory (as happens a lot in the book). Consider the fateful early scene where Holly meets Esther Little and makes her a promise in exchange for a drink of tea. Or, when a character in his love-smitten state, remarks: "Experimentally, silently, I mouth I love you ... No one hears, no one sees, but the tree falls in the forest just the same." If I explain more about this line it would spoil a lot (!!) but know that this undeclared devotion will matter critically later. Then, toward the climax of the book, a labyrinth that we first heard about obliquely in the first few pages makes an appearance. Mitchell cleverly plants all these small acts throughout the book and then returns to them later.

Just one aspect about the book, among many others, that was compelling for me.

Also, just fair warning to those who might be put off by all the fantasy elements, particularly in the fifth chapter/section. If you read it tongue-in-cheek, you'll enjoy it much better. Mitchell is the kind of literary writer that plays with genres and it tends to freak people out unnecessarily. Personally, I think it's what makes him such an amazing storyteller.

I appreciate Genevieve's review. Is there a date we are trying to read this by for a group discussion of some sort? I would appreciate this information.

Maureen wrote: "I appreciate Genevieve's review. Is there a date we are trying to read this by for a group discussion of some sort? I would appreciate this information."

Yep! We were reading The Bone Clocks as September's MashableReads book club selection! And we are actually having a Google Hangout with David Mitchell on 10/2 at 2:00pm ET. You can tune in here! http://mashable.com/2014/10/02/david-...

And even if you don't finish the book by the time of the hangout, feel free to discuss the book on this GoodReads thread or on Twitter with the hashtag #MashReads.

anybody else feel like as soon as something cool happens in this book, it immediately stops and there's a hundred pages of filler until the next time something cool happens?

I'M ALMOST DONE

Jeff wrote: "anybody else feel like as soon as something cool happens in this book, it immediately stops and there's a hundred pages of filler until the next time something cool happens?

I'M ALMOST DONE"

Kind of like cliffhangers without the payoff? He shows the aftermath obliquely, like years, even decades later. That aspect didn't frustrate me as much as I thought it would. I guess I liked the 'filler.'

I remember David Mitchell saying somewhere in an interview that he doesn't write novels but novellas--and then ties them together later.

Genevieve wrote: "Jeff wrote: "anybody else feel like as soon as something cool happens in this book, it immediately stops and there's a hundred pages of filler until the next time something cool happens?

I'M ALMOS..."

I appreciate the perspective from David Mitchell about writing novellas and then tying together - it explains quite a bit. Thanks.

Maureen wrote: "Genevieve wrote: "Jeff wrote: "anybody else feel like as soon as something cool happens in this book, it immediately stops and there's a hundred pages of filler until the next time something cool h..."

I totally agree! I thought they way that each "novella" connected was masterfully done in Cloud Atlas and really well done in The Bone Clocks too. I suppose the difference is that in The Bone Clocks each story is connected by characters while, in Cloud Atlas, each chapter is it's stand-alone novella, connected in more tenuous ways.

True! The characters in The Bone Clocks are more tightly connected, they interact more, so the book feels more like a conventional novel, less fragmented than Cloud Atlas.

I've been wondering about the war between the Horologists and the Anchorites. It's a very stark 'good vs. evil' kind of conflict. Pure fun really and you could leave it at that. But I want to believe that Mitchell had a purpose for it, that these 'immortals' entering in and out of Holly's life is a parable of sorts, a parable that's only made clear in that dark final chapter. So then, what does it all mean?

There's that line: “We live on, as long as there are people to live on in." Of course, Holly's talking about survival and family and all that. And then it clicked that this could be a line about the Horologists and Anchorites, too. Is there a larger point about our world we're supposed to get from these Atemporals duking it out?

I think thats part of the problem.

You should check out the review in the New Yorker. It's so on point and taps into a lot of my frustrations: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/201...

I'm being a bit rough though - I did like the read!

Jeff wrote: "I think thats part of the problem.

You should check out the review in the New Yorker. It's so on point and taps into a lot of my frustrations: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/201......"


Thanks for sharing - I enjoyed the article.

Jeff wrote: "I think thats part of the problem.
You should check out the review in the New Yorker. It's so on point and taps into a lot of my frustrations: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/201......"

Ah, the infamous James Wood review. Ugh. Yeah, I respect Wood's opinion but I think he was being unduly harsh on Mitchell in that one. Brian Finney makes a good defense/counterpoint in the Los Angeles Review of Books: http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/add....

Oh, I think The Huffington Post phrased my question better and actually asked Mitchell about it an interview:

Q: "The Bone Clocks does have this dual focus between the fantasy adventure and also global warming and the war in Iraq, these real-world crises. Is there a reason that you wanted to approach these simultaneously? Do you feel like that’s just curiosity on your part to approach them in one novel or did you feel like they spoke to each other in a special way?"

The interview is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09...