I have such mixed feelings about this novel. I would venture to say that it is both revolutionary and gimmicky. I admire the audacity and ambition of Mitchell in his efforts at connecting all the stories, with the theme of reincarnation. I read over half the book and then just became exhausted. Here are the stories which worked well for me: "Letters from Zedelghem", "Half Lives", and "The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish." I really, really tried to read the rest, but could not get interested in the other stories. I've never had a taste for futuristic novels, I must admit, which is probably why I found it so difficult to slog through "Orison of Somni." The 3 stories I completed I found entertaining and well-written. The rest were, IMO, far-fetched and "gimmicky" for want of a better term.

I haven't started the book yet, but I would assume that Big I is the island of Hawaii, locally called the Big Island because--ta dah!--it is the largest of the chain. It is the island that has current volcano activity and is the newest of the chain.

I thought this book was amazing because of its structure and because of the skill with which the author was able to write in each genre.

All the stories worked for me, with "An Orison of Sonmi", "Letters from Zedelghem", and "The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish" being my favorites. I was particularly drawn to the puzzle nature of the book, trying to find links between stories, looking for clever devices within the stories (one obvious one: Adam's story starts the timeline, Zachary's story ends it). In short, I was very impressed with the structure and the connections within the book.

I have mixed feelings about the book, too, but in retrospect I have to say that I really admire what he attempted to do here.

Ironically, the story I had the most trouble with - and which nearly lost me - was the Luisa Rey story. This was mostly due to the interruption of that particular narrative and me struggling to remember details from the first part to the second part. When I first started the sixth story about Zachry, I thought, Oh my, I'll never get through it, but once I became accustomed to the language, it was one of the most riveting for me and after finishing the entire book, I realized that was the story that intrigued me the most. I enjoyed the Cavendish story for the irony and humor, which was a nice break from the seriousness of some of the other stories.

So... since Cavendish points out that most stories are just retellings of the same story - told in new ways sometimes - what other books and stories did these six tales remind you of? Did the philosophical musings at the end of Frobisher's story remind anyone of "The Unbearable Lightness of Being"? I found myself thinking of that book at the end of Frobisher's tale. I also liked the way he looped Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" into the plot of Adam's tale, with the question of why some societies succeed at the expense of others. It was a nice literary effort of the same type of principle.

Do any of you find the word corpocracy trying to insert itself into your vocabulary?

I'm sure I'll think of other things I want to say about this book, but those are some of my initial thoughts for now.

I found it most interesting to read this book on the heels of Never Let Me Go, which also examined cloning. I found Sonmi's story the most compelling, and I also enjoyed Luisa Rey's story although I too had trouble connecting the details due to the break. I think it is particularly difficult in a mystery of this type.

At the risk of sounding too New-Agey, I struggled with this book until I let go of the effort of reading it, and just enjoyed each story for what it was. I was having a lot of trouble reading it because I just couldn't figure out what the author was trying to do. About halfway through I just read each story and enjoyed it for what it was. Only after I read the entire book did I think about the whole picture and how the stories related.

Once I stop struggling with it, I enjoyed it tremendously, even reading it when I wasn't really supposed to be reading! I never would have read it if not for this discussion, so I am thankful for that.

I read this a little less than a year ago and I found it amazing. If you enjoyed it, you must also read Ghostwritten, which has many of the characters and motifs recurring, and explains what was the cataclysm that ended civilisation. I felt the links between the stories were stronger in Ghostwritten. In particular, I was disappointed that the story of Luisa Rey was only a novel, because it didn't make sense with the rest of the stories and with Ghostwritten, where she is presented as a character.

I really enjoyed it, I understand that David Mitchell's intent was to have his stories be pastiches of conventionnal genres: Moby Dick; the airport thriller; the Orison of Sonmi is based on a famous futuristic novel etc. I found David Mitchell to be an amazing stylist. I loved the voices, I was even able to get into the Sloocha stuff, although the use of colons got a bit in the way of the understanding of the dialogue.

I didn't really find it gimmicky, the concept of nested stories is not new, but I felt his treatment of it was sparkling and refreshing and all that. A truly enjoyable read, and I hope he keeps writing many other books.

I am intrigued by Mitchell's take on reincarnation - souls being reborn over and over, repeating the same cycles and the same mistakes over and over. Ultimately, is it positive or negative? Does the book leave you with hope or despair? On a positive note, the cycle will continue. On the negative side: are we doomed to never change, to never learn from our mistakes?

A few random thoughts:

Was the comet birthmark ever mentioned in the first story? Robert Frobisher, Luisa Rey, Sonmi, and Meronym had it, but did Timothy or Adam? I realized the birthmark connected the characters, but I didn't think of it in terms of reincarnation, which would make perfect sense.

Did anyone notice that in the first story white men come to take advantage of and overrun the island people, while in the central Sloosha story, a black woman comes to educate, help and/or find refuge with the island people? A nice balancing trick, I thought.

Another interesting bit I discovered is that Meronym's name is actually a part of speech, and means something that is part of a whole. For example, 'brim' or 'band' would be a meronym of the word 'hat'. She was part of a whole group of peaceful, cooperating humans vs. the more savage peoples left around the world. I also liked the fact that Meronym learned to ride horses in Swannekke, so Luisa's reactors didn't damage that land.

I also liked the connection of Abbesses in the two futuristic stories. I liked the fact Mitchell always offered a glimmer of hope in the dystopias -- there were people like the first Abbess and her friends living 'off the grid' and Zachary's survival of the Kona's brutality was also a spark of hope. I think his book is hopeful, overall, and points out that no matter how savage humans can be to each other, one person acting out of kindness and peace might be enough to balance the scales. Of course, I do tend to be an optimist *vbg*.

The puzzle aspect, finding connections, locating characters or items that crossed between stories, all made this book so much more interesting to me.

I also liked the sheer and glorious audacity of the idea of a cloud atlas at all, since clouds by their very nature are in a state of constant flux and change.

Finally, what has to be my favorite descriptive line in the book (from The Ghastly Ordeal...): "Sometimes the fluffy bunny of incredulity zooms around the bend so rapidly that the greyhound of language is left, agog, at the starting cage." This guy is not only talented, he's funny too.

Here is a link that might be useful: meronym

Martin, I am busily reading Cloud Atlas but am not far enough along to discuss it yet.

I am, however, ready to mail you a cookbook and am having a problem reading the address you gave me. Could you please send me your address. My e-mail is cnewlen@bellsouth.net. Evidently e-mailing through the site has changed. I couldn't figure out how to reach you other than here. Sorry.

I've delayed putting any sort of response on here for fear of sounding utterly stupid. I read the book, and am glad I did. But I just know I didn't "get" everything. I read some of these posts and some of the reviews that I found online, and I realize that I just got the "surface" details of the book. In-depth reading a second time around would help me, but it is doubtful that I will ever read it again.

So, with that introduction, I will proceed with the things I pondered while reading this unusual book...

1. I kept thinking that Mitchell was making a social criticsm...was it contamination of natural resources? was it man's inhumanity toward man? was it the base human ability to destroy others? all of the above?

2. I loved the recurring motifs...the comma-shaped birthmarks, the way that the 1st story found it's way into the 2nd story, and the 2nd into the 3rd, and so on.

3. I was at first put-off by the abrupt ending of stories, especially when I was just getting into the groove of it, but when I realized that I would eventually get to finish each on, then I read on with anticipation.

4. I did not enjoy the Orison of Somni story or the Sloosha story. Too "science-fiction-y" for my tastes. That said, however, I thought these two stories contained the cleverest writing. Creating a new language and carrying it through the story was quite a feat, IMO.

5. I enjoyed the Luisa Rey and Robert Frobisher stories the best. I underlined quite a bit in the RF story - how he thought in terms of musical arrangements was fascinating.

Martin, when you get finished with all the reading you are doing that connects with this book, I hope you plan to enlighten us on your impressions. I certainly am curious.

I loved this book. For the first time ever I was tempted to get a highlighter pen and draw my own attention to some of the wonderful sentences.

I got a complete shock when Adam Ewing's first story ended so suddenly, even though I already knew the layout of the book, but was glad to find the reason in the very next outing. I am not generally a reader of sci-fi, but I have read and enjoyed John Wyndham's work, and have come to the conclusion that I don't mind 'future of our world' stories, but don't much like other entire worlds.
Mitchell's use of language in Sonmi's story was wonderful, where trade names had become common nouns, and I quite liked the format of question and answer too.
Zachry's tale was a bit awkward to start with, mainly due to the language, but as I found with Peter Carey's The True History of the Kelly Gang, if you keep reading and let it wash over you, it quite quickly becomes easier.

I thought the overall theme of the book was conquest of one group of people by another. In the first story it was white colonists, the corporations in the Luisa Rey and Sonmi stories and back to 'tribes' in Zachry's time. Only Frobisher's tale doesn't really fit this theme.

I know this is a book I will want to read again, and thanks to you Martin, for being such a champion for it.

OK Martin, I just read your post on the 'imitate an author' thread, and have to admit that I totally missed the boat with this concept in Cloud Atlas>

Will you tell us the authors please?

Yes, once I get an enthusiasm for something, heaven help the people around me...

(Don't try to summon my enthusiasm, because I haven't got one. - Marvin. One of my favourite H2G2 lines.)

I guess it's time for me to give some of my thoughts. Thanks, by the way, for your comments so far. One of two sent me back to the book, thinking "I hadn't noticed that!". In particular the Adam-Zachry bit - doh! Can't believe I missed that...

Sheri - I must say I could have sworn that the comet birthmark appeared in all six stories. But I can't find the reference in either Ewing or Cavendish, I admit.

The stories I found that worked the best for me initially were Frobisher, Sonmi (that was horrifying! I didn't see the "paradise" bit coming at all...) and Luisa Rey. But on a re-read, I enjoyed Zachry's story more than any of them.

I did find the Frobisher story a bit unconvincing - why should a young cynic who seemed to have very little in the way of morals suddenly get so depressed over a lost love that he'd shoot himself? I'd appreciate any insight into that - but to me, that's a bit unlikely. I thought of him much more as a "Mr Ripley" character until the last few letters...

I didn't see the theme so much as conquest of one group by another. I felt more that the point was being made - perhaps a little depressingly - that the people who succeed in this world are generally not the idealistic people with morals looking out for other people, but the immoral cynics looking out for themselves - and thus it always will be, even if by their actions they destroy the world we live in. Yes, in all of the books the "goodie" beats the "baddie" - or at least gets away from him/her/them - but it's an individual success in a world moving generally in the opposite direction. I agree, though, Kath, that Frobisher's tale doesn't quite fit - unless you want to think of the "goodie" in him beating the "baddie" in him?

Another common theme is the way each "person" moves onto a new phase in their life; Adam becomes a more idealistic person, but has (presumably) learned to be less gullible; Robert becomes less cynical and decides that he's had enough of life (a bit drastic, that!); Luisa loses her job, but becomes a better reporter who has lived up to her father; Timothy Cavendish moves to Scotland, but vows to return; Somni ascends; Zachry meets Meronym and leaves Big I. I know that in all stories, someone usually moves on (or it's not much of a story) but I thought it was interesting that in all of the stories in Cloud Atlas the people are moving in a direction which is generally against the flow that the novel is moving. The people all get better and more idealistic, but the world gets worse and more cynical...

I also like the interconnecting themes and cross-references...Adam and Zachry both climb mountains; Rufus SIXsmith; the reference to an exposed throat (Zachry and - where was the other one?) and many more...

A couple of...

Kath - I missed your question about the differing styles. But I think it's better answered by David Mitchell himself.

Here is a link that might be useful: Interview with David Mitchell

Thanks for both those articles, Martin. It's obvious I missed the connnections due to not having read those books, although of course I recognised the general styles. I do remember many years ago having a try at Riddley Walker but giving up due to the language. I had two small children at the time and was mainly reading 'easy' stuff.

Any other comments? A couple of details I'd like to raise again.

As I said above, I did find Robert Frobisher's suicide a little unconvincing - well, to be brutally honest, I thought it was the main flaw in the book. Does anyone disagree with me?

And what about the inconsistency? The Cloud Atlas Sextet is not mentioned by name until well into the second set of letters from Robert Frobisher; even the discussion about the "overlapping soloists" is in the second set of letters  but when Luisa Rey orders the recording, sheÂd only read the first set of letters - she didn't receive the second set until the very end of "her" story. Just an error? or are we intended to believe that she subconsciously knew about (remembered?) the sextet when she read the first letters?

I'd agree Frobisher's suicide initially seemed inconsistent with his very self-centered personality. Even being totally humiliated and dismissed by Eva probably wouldn't push such a narcissistic character into suicide.

However, he not only lost his idealized love (and that idealism must have been a strain for such a cynical soul), but also the roof over his head, his income flow, and his patron, who had clearly declared his intention to ruin Frobisher in all European musical circles and could easily do so. He had no funds and no other options, and his life's work, The Cloud Atlas Sextet, was finished.

I think he felt he had nothing left. He writes to Sixsmith, ...truth is, I don't know where it came from, Waking dream. Will never write anything one-hundredth as good. Wish I were being immodest but I'm not. Cloud Atlas Sextet holds my life, is my life, now I'm a spent firework; but at least I've been a firework. So perhaps his suicide was believable.

I have been wondering more about the birthmark. Do you find it a clumsy device? Is there a deeper underlying meaning, other than to link the characters or to suggest reincarnation?

The Cavendish story had me a bit puzzled. Was he delusional? Was he really committed? What did I miss?

I was fascinated by the amanuensis theme that ran through the book - obviously Frobisher, Luisa Rey was a reporter, Zachary a storyteller, Ewing's story is told through his diary, etc. Just another layer to the novel.

I have also been seeking in vain for some deeper meaning to Cavendish's story starting with three girls attacking him. I kept expecting something connected with that to resurface later.

This is a truly unique novel. I have requested Ghostwritten from the library and hope to get it soon.

I also found Cavendish's story puzzling, it was such a slap-stick thing in the middle of more serious stories.

Cavendish believed his brother arranged to have him committed, yet I found it hard to understand how any legitimate institution would accept him getting there under his own steam and signing himself in. The whole arrangement was very odd.

Maybe it was just another way of pondering who is sane, who is mad, and who is in control of us.

I liked the comet birthmark, I didn't find it clumsy. In addition to linking the characters and suggesting reincarnation, I thought of it as a symbol of the vastness of the universe beyond our little world, something to remind us that no matter how badly we mess up the earth, there are far greater things beyond us that will long outlast us. Or maybe each life is just a shooting star -- bright and brief? I'm not sure, but I liked the device, though I still can't find a reference to on in either Adam or Timothy's stories.

Cavendish had a birthmark. He mentions in passing that his ghastly sister-in-law called it "Timbo's t**d."

I'm not quite finished yet, but so far I like Zachry's story the best. Hawaii is one of my very favorite places, and I liked the way Mitchell used old stuff in his futuristic story, e.g., merging Sonmi as a goddess with the old Hawaiian fire goddess Pele who also appeared(s) to people as a beautiful young woman or an old crone.

I do remember a vague reference to a birthmark in the Cavendish story (I'd have to re-read it again to find the exact quote, though). I've yet to find it in Adam's story, but due to its style and dense language, I think it may be hard to find.

Re Frobisher, I did find his final act believable. To me, it fit in with the philosophical underpinnings of this book and its exploration of Eternal Recurrence. Frobisher says in his letter:

"Strip back the beliefs pasted on by governesses, schools and states, you find indelible truths at one's core. Rome'll decline and fall again, Cortes'll lay Tenochititlan to waste again, and later, Ewing will sail again, Adrian'll be blown to pieces again, you and I'll sleep under Corsican stars again, I'll come to Bruges again, fall in and out of love with Eva again, you'll read this letter again, the sun'll grow cold again. Nietzsche's gramophone record. When it ends, the Old One plays it again, for an eternity of eternity."

What is amazing about this, though, is that Mitchell is still able to imply there is hope with the outcomes of his other stories. Like clouds raining down upon us, we serve our moment in time, get reabsorbed into something new to continue the cycle, but like a fingerprint or snowflake, we leave our own unique and indelible impression - similar to what came before, made of the same ingredients in fact(like the clones) but somehow different and individual, in spite of using the same old recipe. We may continue on in this ever going cycle, but life somehow manages to go on rather than completely annihilate itself - of which Adam and Zachry are proof.

Did you like that Frobisher's love triangle parallels some of the scenes in the movie, "The Graduate"? I also enjoyed the hilarious irony of Timothy Cavendish fighting to get his "ticket to Hull" (and my American ears were hearing ticket to Hell during that whole skirmish). And the nurse Noakes / nurse Ratched parallel was a nice touch, too.

Also, thanks for the definition of Meronym. I suspected it meant something like that, but didn't bother to look it up as I was reading.

I think, in the end, this is one of those books you could read over and over, still scratch your head about some of it, and still find new things to ponder.

Carolyn and Georgia Peach, thanks for the Cavendish birthmark confirmation. I thought I'd re-read, but the book had to go back to the library. I think it would be safe to assume Adam had the mark, as well.

Like clouds raining down upon us, we serve our moment in time, get reabsorbed into something new to continue the cycle, but like a fingerprint or snowflake, we leave our own unique and indelible impression - similar to what came before, made of the same ingredients in fact(like the clones) but somehow different and individual, in spite of using the same old recipe. We may continue on in this ever going cycle, but life somehow manages to go on rather than completely annihilate itself. -- Beautifully stated!

I have finally finished the book. Usually I read quite quickly, but life interfered. I did enjoy it very much; and, Martin, I'm sure I wouldn't have liked it as much if I had not had the benefit of your discussion of it at lunch. It helped a lot, knowing the ends of the stories were coming.

I did see hope in the stories in that civilizations may fall around us, but individuals can still triumph. Zachry's story is my favorite, and I liked Cavandish just for the lighter touch. I don't usually go for sci fi, but I have highly recommended the book to a friend who does.

I actually listened to an unabridged audio version of this book in February this year. Astrokath, you have NO IDEA how startled I was when the Adam's story ended mid sentence! I thought my MP3 player had run out of juice!

After reading all this great commentary, I don't have much to add other than for 2005 this was the best book I've read. I was very caught up in finding the links from one story to the next but not having read any reviews or discussed it with anyone, the sequence traveling forward in time and then back took me along with it as an unwitting passenger.

I certainly could do with reading it again, but I'm putting off re-reading ANY books until I'm 80 :-)and that gives me another 27 years of new material to absorb.

Here's a thought.

As most of you are aware, I was extremely impressed by Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. But I felt very strongly that it was a book that one should read "without peeking", and without reference to any reviews that gave anything away.

I don't feel at all the same about Cloud Atlas. I feel that I would positively encourage anyone who is not sure about this book, or someone who thought they were only likely to read the book once, to read this thread and only then read the book. There seems to be no such thing as a spoiler for this book, to my mind.

If I can indulge in a fanciful analogy, I think that Cloud Atlas is a huge canvas, with an overall wonderful picture, and with more and more fascinating details as you look more deeply. Never Let Me Go is like a sort of puzzle picture - at first glance, it looks like one thing; then as you look more carefully at it, you realize slowly that it's actually something quite different; and once you've seen that, you can never quite see the original picture you first saw.

I agree that you can't really spoil "Cloud Atlas" by reading reviews and comments.

A question I forgot to ask earlier, though, was do you think this is a book that can be read in any order (e.g., the stories together rather than split up)? Was it really necessary to split the stories? Does it detract from the meaning or the overall puzzle to read them any way you like? I, personally, felt it might not make a difference, but I would first have to go back and re-read the sections as whole sections and not in the order they were delivered to me. In fact, I felt I might have gotten more out of it if I had read the sections in their entirety without the interruptions.

Well, I did both. The first time I read it, I read it "as written" - but the second time I read each story complete, to get each one clear in my mind for the discussion.

I enjoyed it more as written - I found the connections and the "unwinding" added to the whole.

I "cheated" and read the stories in their entirety. To split them up, albeit challenging, seemed to add to the "gimmickry" of the novel. I think some who would prefer to read them split up might see the work as a sort of "game", as I would presume the connections would be more difficult to follow, however tantalizing....

I actually found the connections easier to follow, as in the first half, each time a portion finished there was a reference in the next book; and in the second half each time a portion started, there had recently been a reference to it in the previous portion.

Possibly this book was meant to be read both ways? Hard to imagine, a book written to be actually read in different ways, but maybe this it.

Bringing this back to the top...

Having now finished Ghostwritten, it's an interesting comparison. I think perhaps Ghostwritten is a little more interconnected in all sorts of ways, whereas the threads in Cloud Atlas are a little more linear.

Any other comments about Cloud Atlas by anyone?

Martin, can you cheat a bit and fill us in on Ghostwritten? Venusia said above that Ghostwritten "explains ... the cataclysm that ended civilisation" and also showed Luisa Rey as a real person. Can you give us a synopsis or a few of the main links between the two books? I'm curious, but doubt I'll read GW any time soon.

Martin, I read this after Christmas last year. After reading the above comments I feel I must have missed all the symbolism and hidden depths that others have found.
Perhaps I should force myself to do a re-read.

But I didn't know this novel couldn't be spoiled, so I just now read the thread. I listened to the unabridged version, so my response may be a tad bit unlike others. I didn't see the spelling of many names and so missed a number of clues. On the other hand, Zachry's tale, when read by a professional performer, was absolutely lovely. The cadences of the language was delightful. I had no struggle to get into his story.

I loved and I hated this book. I was charmed by the first half of Adam's tale and was amused by our composer's struggle.

I hated, hated, hated the Luisa Rey story. But that should surprise no one. I am a nuclear engineer who has spent 25 years doing safety analysis, risk assessments, and environmental assessments. I get very tired of those who do not understand that in a modern economy ignoring safety is short-term, very short-term, thinking and just stupid. (Just ask Merck - Looks like their liability on Vioxx is going to be in the tens of billions ultimately.) Rant over. I began to enjoy the story for a simple tale of murder and may-hem. I also began at that point to realize that Mitchell was using differing styles to tell his stories and to become intrigued in trying to figure out exactly what that meant.

During the Ghastly Ordeal, I began to realize that struggles to get home, even when we have no home, was a running theme throughout the book. Safe haven perhaps being a better term. Cavendish certainly had a struggle to get safely out of London to his safe haven in the north. Then he had the struggle to return home. Luisa's young neighbor risked the jump across balconies to get to the safe haven of her apartment. Luisa herself was frequently in need of a safe haven. The youngster ultimately found his new safe home. Luisa found her place in life. Adam was, of course, going home. His Maoriori friend no longer had a home. Frobusher had been kicked out of his home and was looking for another. Was his suicide in part because he no longer had any place to go? Sonmi's home was taken away from her and her interim home wasn't exactly a home. (Was that portion of her story an homage to the students struggling to improve their prospects who practically live at the university or library, played off against those who are just there because Dad said they have to go? Always was that way, always will be?) Later we see her as she escapes to a safe haven, and then as she prepares for her version of Paradise, which of course, wasn't. Zachry is already in what most of us consider Paradise. Is home to him the place where the family plaques reside? Is his story paradise lost and then perhaps regained? He lives long enough to know his grandchildren which is an improvement over his previous home.

We have a bridge and a crossing of water in all the tales, don't we? Wonder what exactly that means?

I'm big with the individualist thing, but I'm also aware that individuals survive longer in groups...

I think choosing to make the birthmark a comet is excellent, the comet it is a symbol for a cycle, a comet keeps circling around the sun over and over. I think the comet implies the soul will come back in future lives.

Andre, of course! That makes perfect sense.

Stumbled on this discussion doing a little research on the book. Thought I'd contribute something I felt was missing.

David Mitchell himself said in an interview that all the leading characters except one are reincarnations of the same soul. If we take the birthmark to be the sign of this, we can see that the five leading characters that are the "same soul" are Adam Ewing, Frobisher, Louisa Rey, Cavendish, and Sonmi~451. The reincarnation of that soul occurs in Sloosha's though, just not as the narrator. Instead it appears as Meronym.

Just thought I'd point that out.