I just finished reading this. What's the Veeky Forums consensus? It felt a pseudy to me at times...

I just finished reading this. What's the Veeky Forums consensus? It felt a pseudy to me at times, but the author did a really good job at making each story feel like it was from its respective time period. It had a good message too, maybe not a unique one, but the way the story was told made it mean more. My biggest gripe was how things didn't really tie together like promised. I was expecting a grand reveal for how the actions of the stories blended together into a big journey that spanned centuries, but that didn't happen at all. I'm somewhat cynical that the author just wrote the separate stories and then tied them together with the matryoshka structure to appeal to people who want to read a "modern classic".

bump

David Mitchell worshipped by brit book reviewers...i tried 'Ghostwritten' but I felt the pseud was strong in this one and didnt finish it

Just looked this one up, it has the same multi-character semi-connected theme Cloud Atlas does? I don't know why one author would do that concept twice

While this book may not say anything totally original or profound, I did find this book very helpful in getting me through high school. I think that the stories are not totally connected for a reason. All of our actions ripple into the future, but they do so in such an insignificant way. However, the last line of the book really sums everything up. Although each of our ripples is small, they are still laced in
the fabric of the universe.

ambitious

>Veeky Forums consensus

the movie is better(the movie is 9.5/10)

Haha, I wish he'd only do it twice

Kek

Is the book worth reading if I really liked the movie? I think that telling the stories all together worked perfectly fine on screen so I don't really so what the book could have on it.

Also the book doesn't have Hugh Grant playing a mute headhunter or Tom Hanks as a dirty English gangster.

I like the movie, it's in my top three, if not number 1 on my list. Bought the book because of it, but just felt kind of plain and was hard to get through, reading purely for plot is hard to do nowadays when there are comics, movies, and games that do plot better with less shit writing and pretty things to look at.

Shit taste.
It's a great film, but, wow, so many are far better.

I saw the movie when it came out, just read the book and then watched the movie again. You definitely got most of the plot, they basically just cut the middle out of each story. The book does a better job expressing the ripple idea than the movie, but that's because print can get those ideas across better. There are some good lines in the book as a whole.

I would say read the book if you liked the themes of the movie and want to explore them more. If you liked the story, you basically already got it.

what do you mean by feels pesudy?

He meant it felt like a Pynchon novel but because it wasn't written by Pynchon the author must be a pseudointellectual.

i'm going through it, like, 20%
it's certainly not boring, that's all i can say

t. butthurt pseud

There are points where it feels like the author is just showing off that he can write well in so many different voices, rather than using that skill to make a good story. I'm not sure how to explain it beyond that.

I don't see the Pynchon comparison beyond the fact that both are post-modern. There were not a lot of goofs, gags, jokes, and rambunctious behavior in Cloud Atlas

I've got at least three of his books, Thousand Autmuns, Cloud Atlas and Ghostwritten. I've flipped through them but haven't properly read them. He seems like he's trying a little too hard to be post-modern but doesn't even come off as post-modern lite, some genuinely interesting concepts though.

I don't really understand the criticism about Mitchell flaunting his capacity to write in various styles. If the whole idea of the book is that predatory action is (and will be) a constant antagonistic force in human history/civilization, then of course you want that to be reflected in a variety of voices. Moreover, the various forms of deceit (betrayal, conspiracy, enslavement e.g.) require different emotional resonance and thereby different personalities. That the stories were tangentially connected through manuscripts and recordings implies that our legacy can be determined by such action and that we have an obligation to mitigate such happenings.

I thought it was a great effort, although I wish Mitchell didn't have to hit you over the head with his theme in the last 30 pages and that certain sections didn't drag (Sloosha's Crossing).

How did the Cavendish story relate to that theme though? If the point was the choice between doing good and evil that everyone has to make, then each story should have had that present. I guess you could argue that the evil was the complacency of living in a retirement home, but that doesn't seem on the same scale of social commentary as the other five.

Read it years ago, enjoyed it. Particularly the Korean(?) parts. The movie was beyond terrible.