<p>I haven’t lost any sleep over what’s true and what isn’t, because in the end, it’s all fiction anyway, right? If I try to pull apart the story to find what is supposed to be true, then like BUandBC82, my head starts to spin. For example, Timothy Cavendish’s story is a movie (“a disney”) in Sonmi’s story, so does that mean it’s fiction or biography? Either way, Luisa’s story must be made up, because if Timothy’s story is true, then Luisa’s story is just a pulp novel by chubby Hilary V. Hush. And if Timothy’s story is false, then everything within it, including Luisa’s story, is false. And if Luisa’s story is false, what does that say about Robert Frobisher’s letters and the Cloud Sextet? And if Robert Frobisher never existed, then neither did Adam’s journal that he found on Ayers’ shelves. It could be, then, that only Timothy Cavendish’s story, Sonmi’s story and Zachry’s story are true. On the other hand….I could go on, but you get the point. It’s a riddle. </p>
<p>Therefore, I think of it this way: The stories of Cloud Atlas are as true and as untrue as, let’s say, the gospels of the New Testament. Within the gospels, there are some universal thematic truths and some historical truths, but there are also symbols, allegories, stories within stories, and lessons shaped by cultural and religious influences. The gospel stories overlap and draw from the same source. Sometimes they contradict each other. </p>
<p>Now I’m not comparing Cloud Atlas to sacred scripture—I like the book, but not that much :). I’m just saying that structurally and thematically, the novel shares some of the above traits. In the final analysis, the fine line between truth and fiction is incidental because the ultimate goal is to express a powerful message about our shared human experiences that can resonate with everyone.</p>
<p>Mary13— They’re very different. CA is such a magic box of playing with structure, genre, style. You can see the bones of it in Mitchell’s “Ghostwritten”. BSG is a straight narrative, very moving, very funny at times. I think Mitchell was working through his own childhood, and I also think it’s the first book he wrote after he became a father (he really is so young! Argh!) And “The Thousand Autumns…” is yet another new book-- straight historical fiction with some twists. </p>
<p>I think CA is still my favorite, because I was so blown away by its structure when I read it. I turned my brother on to it, who was wild about it, but who loves BSG the most. It’s interesting to see who like which book best… Read BSG and tell me what you think! :)</p>
<p>Ok, this is a stretch, but let’s give it a whirl. In the Luisa Rey story, Margo Roker is in a coma when Bill Napier is killed. Then she suddenly awakes, as if this is one of the possible mechanisms of reincarnation. Bill Napier –> Margo Roker “reborn”. </p>
<p>Timothy Cavendish also has a near-death experience when he has a stroke at the end of the first part of his story. When he regains consciousness, (p354) one of the memories he has is of Margo Roker (whom he has presumably been reading about in the Luisa story). It takes him months to put his memories together again:
</p>
<p>Anyway, we don’t know what has become of Luisa Rey by the time of the Cavendish story, but she would have been about 70 (?) by then. Theorem: Luisa Rey —> Timothy Cavendish “reborn”.</p>
<p>BUandBC, I also share your frustration in trying to figure out the truth; I’ve opted out of the confusion by deciding that the author wants us to think about the various ways that truth can be obscured. I think David Mitchell would appreciate your search for the truth; he has Meronym commenting that real truth is more precious and rarer than diamonds. </p>
<p>It would be nice to know what the author’s intentions are until you realize he is being impossible!</p>
<p>Leaving aside the structure of the book, the content contains so much deception. What parts created the most reaction? I can think of 3 right off the bat:
Dr. Goose leading Adam to believe that worms were festering in his brain;
Sonmi learning about the fabricants being recycled;
Sonmi (again) figuring out that the Union was “in” on the whole thing.</p>
<p>How ironic, then, that Adam says of Dr. Goose: “My doctor is an uncut diamond of the first water” (p. 36).</p>
<p>And this also makes me think of Morty Dhondt’s comment to Frobisher:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps Mitchell is saying that we will always coexist with both evil and good, sometimes feeling the curse of violence, and other times, the blessing of truth.</p>
<p>I would note that the stories aren’t actually “within” the other stories. For example, we don’t think that Frobisher copies over Adam’s journal into his letters, or that Cavendish transcribes (or reads out loud in the “disney”) the novel about Luisa. Certainly we don’t think that Zach’ry “has” all of these stories. They all “exist” in some sense apart from the others.</p>
<p>These aren’t like the “play within the play” in Hamlet, which the characters in the main play see.</p>
<p>^ That’s true. It’s more like there are “trailers” for Story A inside Story B. Frobisher’s description of Adam’s journal is intriguing, but not detailed, just as is Cavendish’s description of the Luisa Rey novel, Luisa’s comments about Frobisher’s letters, Sonmi’s mention of the Cavendish film, and Zachry’s glimpse of the Sonmi interview in the orison. The reader is one step ahead of the characters here—each protagonist wants to know more of something the reader has already learned about in the previous chapter.</p>
<p>Adam Ewing (journal), Frobisher (letters) and Sonmi’s stories contain the most truth (though the truth as each one sees it).</p>
<p>Someone other than Louisa Rey tells her story - truth/fiction - perhaps a mixture of both. </p>
<p>Timothy Cavendish - definitely fiction supersedes truth in his fictionalized memoir. He’s writing for the screen.</p>
<p>Zachry weaves truth with storytelling for his audience but he believes truly that Meronym/Sonmi are one. Though Zachry tells the story, Meronym is the link.</p>
<p>Personally, I can excuse the timeline perchance-discrepancy (Luisa Rey/Cavendish) by assuming fiction got in the way of exactitude on the part of “Hilary V Hush” and Cavendish.</p>
<p>Interesting to me: All the tales pass in some way through someone other than the narrator. Ewing’s son handles his journal; we see Frobisher’s letters to Sixsmith only, his audience of one; we read the Luisa Rey story as told by Hilary V Hush; Cavendish pens a fictionalized memoir for publication; an archivist preserves Sonmi’s tale; Zachry tells Meronym’s story. Each narrator narrates for an audience.</p>
<p>These are good points. The reader is one step ahead of the characters; in addition, each character is only one step ahead of the previous character…right? </p>
<p>So I don’t think we’re talking about literal reincarnation. Otherwise, Zachry, Sonmi, Cavendish and Luisa Rey would probably all “remember” Adam Ewing, etc.</p>
<p>Ayrs does have the vision of the world of Sonmi, but that is a window into the future rather than a past life.</p>
<p>In addition…this really isn’t related to the above, but I was thinking about the name Sixsmith. There are six narratives in the book, and they were crafted by Mitchell. So in a way, Mitchell himself could be thought of as a “sixsmith.”</p>
<p>^ I like that! We know, after all, that both are portly older men. (Sonmi compares Cavendish’s appearance to the Buddha, and Cavendish calls Hilary Hush a “lard-bucket.”) So maybe in the Cavendish story, where, as ignatius points out, “fiction supersedes truth,” Timothy is writing his “enhanced” memoir while also referring to his own work under a nom de plume.</p>
<p>I’m not going to let Mitchell get off so easy. He’s so clever. Cloud Atlas is filled with amazing literary and historical references, how could he leave so many loose ends?</p>
<p>I think the Timothy Cavendish story is “real”.</p>
<p>Luisa Rey, “not real”, and is a rambling work of bad fiction-edited by Tim,written by the mysterious Hilary V Hush.
Frobisher, is a story within a story, as is Ewing’s morality tale of redemption. </p>
<p>Sonmi is real, because she watches the "real’ movie of Tim’s Ghastly ordeal.
Slooshin story is “real” because Sonmi has become the mythical god of this future society. </p>
<p>But, as you say Mary13, and Mitchell is quoted as saying “The myths become real, when patterns emerge”.
Throughout the “real” and “unreal” parts of the book, there are patterns of human behavior, and those the truths of Cloud Atlas. Bleak, but humorously told. Kudos to Mitchell. </p>
<p>I respect Mitchell’s talent, but didn’t “care” about these characters as much as I hoped.
So I’ll answer Mitchell’s own question- “gimmicky”.
And, I do think the reincarnation thing- “hippie, druggie, new age …”</p>
<p>I did “care” about some of the characters. Ewing was so sensitive and full of empathy; Frobisher was so charming and creative, even if he was a mess; Sonmi, as I said earlier, reminded me a little bit of Jane Eyre (whom I cared about enormously) in the way she learned and grew; Zachry’s conflicted feelings about Meronym were interesting and understandable (I’ll betcha the movie includes nothing at all about his thinking it might be a good idea to kill her at one point).</p>
<p>Most of the others, not so much, I’ll admit…</p>
<p>I do think the book was rather gimmicky, and it was certainly written with an eye to showing off Mitchell’s ability to mimic different styles. But I think it was brilliant.</p>
<p>I really don’t discern a “hippie, druggie, new age” sensibility in the book. For one thing, Mitchell has said that he is not a believer in reincarnation; the linkages between souls in the book were primarily a literary device. He is a little too young to be any kind of hippie anyway. </p>
<p>Another consideration is that the only hippie-ish people in the book, the Swanekke protesters, weren’t drawn very sympathetically. There was a horrible spy in their midst, and they were too naive even to suspect it.</p>
<p>A lot of the commentary on the book mentions post-modernist influences on Mitchell. Insofar as I understand what that means, I think it’s probably the best context in which to understand him.</p>
<p>NJTM- the “hippie, druggie, new age” comment refers to Timothy’s commentary about Hilary Hush’s use of the comet birthmark, and reincarnation in the Luisa Rey novel.</p>
<p>NJTM, I agree with you re postmodernist influences. In the article you linked, the parts on metafiction and intertextuality seem particularly applicable, e.g., “Intertextuality in postmodern literature can be a reference or parallel to another literary work, an extended discussion of a work, or the adoption of a style.”</p>
<p>Georges Perec’s *La Vie mode d’emploi<a href=“mentioned%20in%20an%20earlier%20post%20as%20a%20possible%20Mitchell%20influence”>/i</a> is considered to be an example of postmodern fiction. </p>
<p>By the way, Zachry is one of the characters I cared most about, which gives me misgivings about the movie, since he is so changed in the film incarnation. However, I know I am supposed to judge a film separately from the book it is based on—different medium, different audience, different artistic focus—so I’ll try my best to be fair!</p>
<p>It’s going to be a challenge. My son, who read “Cloud Atlas” a few years ago, soon after I did, viewed the trailer and said this about it in an email: </p>
<p>“ooooO It may be terribly inaccurate to the book, but it still looks fascinating.”</p>
<p>My reaction to the trailer was more like “uh oh!” but still I’m going to try to be objective about the movie.</p>