Jake

The Idle Book Club 2: Cloud Atlas

Recommended Posts

I took Chris's point as being "no matter what, technology changes fast. any author of the internet age can't do something like what mitchell here did and not think it's going to sound dated" specifically for the reasons you're describing.

For me the futurist use of brands as common nouns dates the book itself (as opposed to it always being (and feeling like) a futurist story written in 2004). I think the book would've benefited from not going down that route as the rest of the book feels pretty timeless.

I've been reading Cory Doctorow's Pirate Cinema for a few minutes before I go to bed, and it definitely is pretty futurist-ic and kind of heavy-handed in how it deals with its theories (especially up through the first few chapters, where I am so far), but I've kind of digged it so far. Even though it does name existing corporations specifically (EMI and Disney are specifically name-dropped), I think maybe it works because it comes from the perspective of a kind of narrow-minded 16-year-old who doesn't really understand anything about life, so everything is coming at him as a new illuminating revelation. It's not as deep as Cloud Atlas by any stretch but I think it works very well because it focuses your attention right where the kid's mind is like a spotlight, showing you everything he knows in complete detail but leaving the periphery dark.

I also recently read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for the first time recently, which also is an obviously dated-in-its-time attempt at futurism, but in the general narrative the idea that we have a thriving moon colony and yet there's only a few dozen to a few hundred computers in existence seems plausible in very general terms, given how the story was framed.

So yeah, I didn't like the Sonmi-451 section's use of brand names as generics either, but I don't think it's specifically because it's using brand names or because it got things wrong, I think it's more holistic and general than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Jim Broadbent's Cavendish is a highlight of the movie for me.

I suspect this to be a true statement. Broadbent is an incredible talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not good at saying deep and thoughtful things about books, so I'll be content to say I liked it a lot although the ending felt a bit unfulfilling somehow. One thing that bothered me about the cast, though, is how you (mostly Chris, I think) referred to the Wachowskis as "the Wachowski brothers". Lana's been openly trans for a while now and finished her transition in 2008, I don't think it'd be too much to ask that people respect that.

Not trying to sound like a douche, it's just that trans issues are something I care a lot about and it bothered me.

Edit: Oh, and the structure of the book made me think of another recent favourite of mine, Zack Parson's "Liminal States".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed that was a simple mistake, since they were "The Wachowskis" or "The Wachowski Siblings" for all except the first mention in the cast iirc.

No, it was at least twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. I thought I only heard it once, since it kind of put me on alert. Nevertheless, the sort of thing that is easily excusable by ignorance. Chris doesn't especially strike me as someone who keeps current on the personal lives of celebrities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. I thought I only heard it once, since it kind of put me on alert. Nevertheless, the sort of thing that is easily excusable by ignorance. Chris doesn't especially strike me as someone who keeps current on the personal lives of celebrities.

Oh, I don't think it was said with any malicious intent at all. And I'm really not one to keep up with the personal lives of celebrities myself either, but Lana Wachowski's transition was treated as such a big deal that it seems hard not to know about it. I also heard lots of people at the time dismiss it as "him" just being full of shit/a weirdo/insane, which really put me on edge.

Anyway, didn't mean to derail the thread too badly. It's just really something I care a lot about and I might get a bit overzealous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it was at least twice.

I would give Chris the benefit of the doubt on this one. I am very aware of the Lana's transition, but when I refer to them, half of the time I start by calling them the Wachowski Brothers and have to correct myself, so I can understand why Chris might say it a few times, though I would agree that it should be corrected when you catch yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would give Chris the benefit of the doubt on this one. I am very aware of the Lana's transition, but when I refer to them, half of the time I start by calling them the Wachowski Brothers and have to correct myself, so I can understand why Chris might say it a few times, though I would agree that it should be corrected when you catch yourself.

Aye, I caught Chris calling them the Wachowski Brothers twice, but in a previous cast he referred to them as the Wachowski Siblings, so I think he is up on the news. It's an easy slip to make after so many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, I caught Chris calling them the Wachowski Brothers twice, but in a previous cast he referred to them as the Wachowski Siblings, so I think he is up on the news. It's an easy slip to make after so many years.

It's a gross combination of the "Wachowski Brothers" being their moniker for so long, at the height of their popularity, and the "Wachowski Siblings" feeling somehow clumsier, which my brain at least will subconsciously avoid if I'm in free-talking mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I didn't know about that, and it's because I've paid absolutely 0% of my attention to them since the second Matrix movie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I didn't know about that, and it's because I've paid absolutely 0% of my attention to them since the second Matrix movie :)

You didn't miss anything with Revolutions and V for Vendetta, but Speed Racer is a visual treat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must beg to differ on V for Vendetta: I thought it was a terrific film with some breathtaking moments. Haven't seen Speed Racer though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not good at saying deep and thoughtful things about books, so I'll be content to say I liked it a lot although the ending felt a bit unfulfilling somehow. One thing that bothered me about the cast, though, is how you (mostly Chris, I think) referred to the Wachowskis as "the Wachowski brothers". Lana's been openly trans for a while now and finished her transition in 2008, I don't think it'd be too much to ask that people respect that.

Not trying to sound like a douche, it's just that trans issues are something I care a lot about and it bothered me.

Edit: Oh, and the structure of the book made me think of another recent favourite of mine, Zack Parson's "Liminal States".

It wasn't out of disrespect; in the midst of the conversation I assume my brain just latched on to the nickname I've known them by for most of their careers. I've only seen two Wachowski films and I don't really pay attention to them much at all, so even though I was aware of Lana's identity, I haven't had enough discussions or considerations of the them for the proper collective noun to fully propagate into my brain. It was an unfortunate slip. It usually takes me at four meetings of someone to remember their name when I actually meet them in person, let alone someone I've never met whose personal affairs I am only dimly aware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you guys had decided not to do genre fiction for the podcast? I was kind of disappointed this turned out to be Science Fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you guys had decided not to do genre fiction for the podcast? I was kind of disappointed this turned out to be Science Fiction.

I would say Cloud Atlas contains many explorations of different genres, but does not ultimately slot into a particular genre as an overall work.

For that matter, though, I don't think that containing science fiction elements inherently makes a book a work of genre fiction. I would still classify, say, Kurt Vonnegut as general "fiction" even though many of his novels include speculative or supernatural elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say Cloud Atlas contains many explorations of different genres, but does not ultimately slot into a particular genre as an overall work.

For that matter, though, I don't think that containing science fiction elements inherently makes a book a work of genre fiction. I would still classify, say, Kurt Vonnegut as general "fiction" even though many of his novels include speculative or supernatural elements.

This uneasiness towards genre fiction is really interesting, given that Michael Chabon has very publicly declared his respect and admiration for genre fiction, and his overall disdain for labeling certain books as "fiction" and other books as "genre fiction." I'm wondering if this will come up at all in the discussion of Telegraph Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well listening to this episode and also the first one makes me feel like a prole, most of what I read is just escapist scifi and fantasy. So I finally registered an idle forums account, and will also try reading more contemporary fiction. Guess i'll start with Telegraph avenue, just as soon as I finish this Joe Abercrombie book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This uneasiness towards genre fiction is really interesting, given that Michael Chabon has very publicly declared his respect and admiration for genre fiction, and his overall disdain for labeling certain books as "fiction" and other books as "genre fiction." I'm wondering if this will come up at all in the discussion of Telegraph Avenue.

I was wondering about this, too! I have a great genre fiction anthology from McSweeney's, edited by Chabon, and his introductory essay is quite powerful.

McSweeneys Enchanted Chamber of Astonishing Stories[/i]']

"Genre, in other words, is - in a fundamental and perhaps ineradicable way - a marketing tool, a standard maintained most doggedly by publishers and booksellers.... This book, the argument goes, has been widely praised by mainstream critics, adopted for discussion by book clubs, chosen by the Today show. Hence it cannot be science fiction."

So Cloud Atlas obviously is not science fiction, because we are discussing it in the Idle Book Club. The Idle Book Club does not discuss science fiction, only serious works involving reincarnation, future dystopian societies, and post-apocalyptic life in the ruins of civilization.

Edit: And, hilariously, I just realized that one of the stories in this anthology is actually by David Mitchell. I highly recommend the anthology, and not just for the introduction!

Edited by Johnnemann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering about this, too! I have a great genre fiction anthology from McSweeney's, edited by Chabon, and his introductory essay is quite powerful.

So Cloud Atlas obviously is not science fiction, because we are discussing it in the Idle Book Club. The Idle Book Club does not discuss science fiction, only serious works involving reincarnation, future dystopian societies, and post-apocalyptic life in the ruins of civilization.

Edit: And, hilariously, I just realized that one of the stories in this anthology is actually by David Mitchell. I highly recommend the anthology, and not just for the introduction!

It's a fuzzy distinction, obviously, but I just can't imagine putting Cloud Atlas in a genre category. It straddles too many genre lines to convincingly place it in one, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This uneasiness towards genre fiction is really interesting, given that Michael Chabon has very publicly declared his respect and admiration for genre fiction, and his overall disdain for labeling certain books as "fiction" and other books as "genre fiction." I'm wondering if this will come up at all in the discussion of Telegraph Avenue.

I feel like the discussion of how "genres" function in modern literature as a community and as an industry could easily colonize the entire hour of discussion about Telegraph Avenue. It is a very complicated subject that has the potential to white-wash over a bunch of careful distinctions, piss people off, and occasionally accomplish both in one fell stroke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fuzzy distinction, obviously, but I just can't imagine putting Cloud Atlas in a genre category. It straddles too many genre lines to convincingly place it in one, I think.

Definitely. I was being snarky with my quoting above, but Chabon's main thrust in that article is that a lot of good fiction is what he calls "Trickster writing", skirting the boundaries of various genres, embracing some conventions while flouting others, and basically not being too concerned with where they fall. Margaret Atwood, Kurt Vonnegut, and Philip K. Dick are all writers that seem to fit in that category for me - but I would also unashamedly call their writing Science Fiction, even if it doesn't get marketed that way (well, I guess Dick does). I would also file lots of Cormac McCarthy under "Western", even if I don't like reading Louis L'Amour.

A few months ago I was discussing Chabon's The Yiddish Policeman's Union with my family, and my dad asked "Is it science fiction?" Instantly my mother and I both replied - she said "yes", I said "no". But of course I realized she was right - it's an alternate history, it just happens to blend detective fiction in there and be really, really well crafted. And of course it won a number of sci-fi writing awards...

Speaking of, Cloud Atlas was shortlisted for both the Nebula and the Arthur C. Clarke awards ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well listening to this episode and also the first one makes me feel like a prole, most of what I read is just escapist scifi and fantasy. So I finally registered an idle forums account, and will also try reading more contemporary fiction. Guess i'll start with Telegraph avenue, just as soon as I finish this Joe Abercrombie book.

This is pretty much exactly how I felt since I started following. All of the book choices made so far have helped move me out of my comfort zone and into another level of fiction. I'm loving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the discussion of how "genres" function in modern literature as a community and as an industry could easily colonize the entire hour of discussion about Telegraph Avenue. It is a very complicated subject that has the potential to white-wash over a bunch of careful distinctions, piss people off, and occasionally accomplish both in one fell stroke.

Very true, and I feel like Telegraph Avenue is going to have enough complicated issues (race) that there just won't be enough time to do a genre discussion justice. Which is a shame. It's one of my favorite literary arguments to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now