Octopus Overlords

Read a review on our intranet today and it seems very interesting.

This is the a sample of the review.

"Mitchell isn't the first writer to experiment with genre or with tricksy narrative deconstruction; what sets Cloud Atlas apart is the skill with which it is put together, and the confidence of Mitchell's voice. The novel spans several hundred years, skipping easily from a nineteenth century notary travelling the Pacific, to a post-Apocalyptic future in which the human race is devolved into a pre-industrial pastoral society on the verge of extinction, via a 1930s composer scamming his way out of penury, a 1970s journalist on the trail of a nuclear energy corporation with a dubious safety record, a modern day publisher escaping the family of a disgruntled author, and a dystopian tomorrow in which genetically engineered slaves struggle for revolution. The author slips effortlessly across the ages, and, though there are a couple of tonal missteps (most frequently in The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing, where, occasionally, he tries just a little bit too hard for an authentic voice), on the whole, the narrative structure is flawless as he genre-hops between wildly different styles."


Anyone here read it? I am looking for something different and this could be it.

Marcus

I read Cloud Atlas last year. It had some good moments, iirc, but I've forgotten most of it. OTOH, Mitchell's first novel, Ghostwritten, was unbelievable. I still remember most of that one. Quite haunting (heh--inside joke once you've read it).

Try this: find a quiet place to read the first chapter of Ghostwritten and see if you are hooked. Then keep in mind two things. First, the first chapter indicates what level of writing Mitchell is capable of, but also all the chapters are completely different so you won't have to deal with that particularl disturbing insanity all through the book.

Is it still worth getting both then? I might start with Ghostwritten given your glowing review.

marcus

Black Swan Green is was also up for the Booker prize -- I can't see how you could go wrong with an author who call do that consistently.

Well, everyone's taste is their own. I didn't like Cloud Atlas nearly as much as I liked Grostwritten, but you might like it better, or hate them both, or whatever. I just thought Ghostwritten was one of the most creative novels I've read. I'm just now remembering the structure of Cloud Atlas, and that was interesting as well. Perhaps I just wasn't paying close enough attention in that one to "get" eveything.

I'd never buy a book I hadn't read at least the first chapter. The corollary is that I always buy a book if I've read the first two chapters. So go down to a bookstore and read the first chapter.
Generally speaking, literary reviews are inaccurate.

The postapocalyptic setting certainly seems intriguing enough. I guess it't not anything like Fallout .

I will read both, not much else in my reading list now that I am done with Deception Point (so so book).

Marcus

I haven't read his other books, but I thought Cloud Atlas was great.

i think people who enjoyed this should check out Thomas Pynchon's _Against the Day_ . it takes place within the same time, but it switches genres throughout the narrative.

I also really enjoyed reading Cloud Atlas. Certainly not one of my favorite books of all time, but I enjoyed it quite a bit and I recall ending the experience by thinking about what an accomplishment it was to tie all of the various vignettes together. Haven't had a chance to see the movie yet, but I want to.

I just finished it a couple of weeks ago and I would agree with a couple of the other posters - it's worth reading...it's good, but not great. Probably the most impressive / interesting thing to me was how he pulled off the storytelling across all of the timelines and characters. A couple of the vignettes were kind of painful to read, but he did a fantastic job of making it all come together.

I liked Cloud Atlas, but I was blown away by Mitchell's The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet. Everything that's done well in the more historical parts of CA is done extraordinarily well in this book.

ChrisGwinn wrote:I haven't read his other books, but I thought Cloud Atlas was great.

Same here. I read it, a while ago - and actually enjoyed it quite a bit. It's pretty unique read.

I was bummed to be advised against seeing the movie.

WSK wrote:Probably the most impressive / interesting thing to me was how he pulled off the storytelling across all of the timelines and characters.

Not just timelines - but the different stories themselves all read like different styles of books. Historical fiction, sci-fi, Clan-of-the-Cavebear, etc.

Unagi wrote:

ChrisGwinn wrote:I haven't read his other books, but I thought Cloud Atlas was great.

Same here. I read it, a while ago - and actually enjoyed it quite a bit. It's pretty unique read.

I was bummed to be advised against seeing the movie.

I read the book and enjoyed it. I saw the movie and loved it. I think if you enjoyed the book, you would certainly enjoy the movie.

I think so. I can't claim to understand it even after reading it, but the variety in story-telling perspectives is impressive by itself. I kept realizing I was probably missing a lot by reading in short bursts, but many parts had interesting characters or settings so getting in a few more pages each night seemed worthwhile.

Twelve years late to the discussion, but I just finished Cloud Atlas after seeing it on a list of Bill Gates' recommended reads recently...and I didn't care for it. While I can appreciate the work that went into the structure and varying styles of the novel, I felt like a lot of it really didn't go anywhere in the end, and a couple of the plotlines just weren't compelling (mainly Mr Ewing on the ship, but also Frobisher the composer). I'm sure the goal was some kind of commentary on human nature and values, but it all fell flat for me. It's not a bad book, but it was far less engaging and interesting than I had hoped.

As for the movie, I doubt I'll ever bother with seeing it. There just wasn't anything compelling enough about the book to make me want to sit through almost three hours of the Wachowski's debatable filmmaking talents.

I read this a billion years ago, but I recall that I enjoyed the idea of the book and where my head went with it more than the book itself.