Jake

The Idle Book Club 2: Cloud Atlas

Recommended Posts

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 ;-)

I think, as Greg Brown sort of implies above (or I could be misreading his implication), in the modern era genre tends to demarcate communities of readers first and foremost. There are clearly many, many people, even in this very thread, who explicitly indicate that they pretty much always stick to sci-fi or fantasy, or escapist fiction generally. There are many other people who explicitly stick to crime fiction or mysteries or thrillers (that's the biggest block of fiction readers by far these days), and others who identify strongly as readers of young adult fiction.

That's a big reason I think genre distinctions are indeed valid. I take Chabon's point, but I don't think genre distinctions just come handed from the literati or whatever as pejoratives, I think they are very strongly tied to signifiers of personal taste that are self-identified by readers of those genres themselves. Although they might be hard to pin down in a bulleted list, there are clearly some kinds of properties that distinguish fiction of a particular genre, properties that cause such a work to become absorbed into the canon of that genre as identified by the people who are self-described readers of said genre.

And although I'm aware both Cloud Atlas and The Yiddish Policemen's Union have received nods from various sci-fi award organizations, I get the strong sense that they don't really fit into the sci-fi genre canon. I could be wrong about that, obviously. But there do seem to be various properties of a given book that, again, might be hard to concretely demarcate but which seem to place a book in one genre or another as far as most people are concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, as Greg Brown sort of implies above (or I could be misreading his implication), in the modern era genre tends to demarcate communities of readers first and foremost. There are clearly many, many people, even in this very thread, who explicitly indicate that they pretty much always stick to sci-fi or fantasy, or escapist fiction generally. There are many other people who explicitly stick to crime fiction or mysteries or thrillers (that's the biggest block of fiction readers by far these days), and others who identify strongly as readers of young adult fiction.

I agree with everything you wrote here, and it's why I have misgivings about declarations that we're post-genre or that criticizing genres is bad. While there are excellent works in every genre I can think of, some of the habituated expectations of genre-reader communities can still be harmful to storytelling and harmful to what I, Chris, and others would consider some of the Big Goals of successful literature.

It's probably easiest to discuss them in the sense of what sells, since discussions about the norms and values of a genre community can quickly turn into No True Scotsman tail-chasing, while industry discussions at least have sales data to fall back on. I consider this genre stuff a very tricky subject to discuss because once you start listing examples and specifics, you can very easily become engaged with the trees and completely ignore the forest. That said, it's a very interesting subject to discuss given the right time and place, since you can start to delve into why genres are constructed the way they are, and what sort of purposes they might solve and wider social divisions they may parallel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you wrote here, and it's why I have misgivings about declarations that we're post-genre or that criticizing genres is bad. While there are excellent works in every genre I can think of, some of the habituated expectations of genre-reader communities can still be harmful to storytelling and harmful to what I, Chris, and others would consider some of the Big Goals of successful literature.

I just want to clarify that I agree with what most of what you're saying, but I think it's a little overblown to say that genre-driven communities are some how harmful to the goals of "literary fiction." These circles have managed to co-exist since the beginning of written fiction, and I'm that they will continue to do so. No matter how wildly successful something like 50 Shades of Grey is, there will always be a market for serious fiction written by serious authors that can be read by serious readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to clarify that I agree with what most of what you're saying, but I think it's a little overblown to say that genre-driven communities are some how harmful to the goals of "literary fiction."

Sorry, I think that point got a little garbled by how I wrote it. I'm talking about how the expectations of a genre can be harmful to the success of that genre's works, similarly to how the expectation that combat must be in every video-game ends up distracting and detracting from some games' strengths. I'm not worried about one genre getting another genre's cooties. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I think that point got a little garbled by how I wrote it. I'm talking about how the expectations of a genre can be harmful to the success of that genre's works, similarly to how the expectation that combat must be in every video-game ends up distracting and detracting from some games' strengths. I'm not worried about one genre getting another genre's cooties. :)

Whoops, sorry for misunderstanding what you wrote there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I think that point got a little garbled by how I wrote it. I'm talking about how the expectations of a genre can be harmful to the success of that genre's works, similarly to how the expectation that combat must be in every video-game ends up distracting and detracting from some games' strengths. I'm not worried about one genre getting another genre's cooties. :)

I'd agree with that, with the clarification that you mean "critical success" or something near it - perhaps something more nebulous, like artistic success. Playing to expectation would probably help to ensure commercial success in every area of fiction, literary fiction included. The real rare birds are those that manage to achieve both, of course.

And I think that's why Chabon's examples of (artistic) successes are those that have a masterful knowledge of convention and expectation, and play with it while blurring boundaries. But I still don't think it's wrong to call Cloud Atlas science fiction, nor right to discount it on that basis. It's not a slavish execution of the tropes and conventions, but that simply means it's an exceptional example.

Although I'll agree that arguing over whether a particular work fits into genre lines is largely pointless, despite the fact that I've just been doing it! I suppose I have a chip on my shoulder about the distinction between "serious" works and genre works, and especially people appearing to buy into that (to my mind) artificial divide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with that, with the clarification that you mean "critical success" or something near it - perhaps something more nebulous, like artistic success. Playing to expectation would probably help to ensure commercial success in every area of fiction, literary fiction included. The real rare birds are those that manage to achieve both, of course.

And I think that's why Chabon's examples of (artistic) successes are those that have a masterful knowledge of convention and expectation, and play with it while blurring boundaries. But I still don't think it's wrong to call Cloud Atlas science fiction, nor right to discount it on that basis. It's not a slavish execution of the tropes and conventions, but that simply means it's an exceptional example.

Although I'll agree that arguing over whether a particular work fits into genre lines is largely pointless, despite the fact that I've just been doing it! I suppose I have a chip on my shoulder about the distinction between "serious" works and genre works, and especially people appearing to buy into that (to my mind) artificial divide.

One thing I'm curious about is whether you think the tropes of science fiction outrank the tropes of other genres in terms of classification. In other words, why is Cloud Atlas "sci-fi" rather than "historical fiction" or "thriller," when it contains significant portions that are very straightforward examples of those genres? The majority of the book, by any measure, is not set in a fantastical or futuristic world, so would you contend that the inclusion of any fantastical or speculative elements in any novel makes it a science fiction novel (in the way that people often self-identify as a particular ethnic group even if their ancestry contains only a fractional representation of that group), or is there sort of a critical mass thing going on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Note: Sci Fi measured by weight. Contents may have settled during shipping).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'm curious about is whether you think the tropes of science fiction outrank the tropes of other genres in terms of classification. In other words, why is Cloud Atlas "sci-fi" rather than "historical fiction" or "thriller," when it contains significant portions that are very straightforward examples of those genres? The majority of the book, by any measure, is not set in a fantastical or futuristic world, so would you contend that the inclusion of any fantastical or speculative elements in any novel makes it a science fiction novel (in the way that people often self-identify as a particular ethnic group even if their ancestry contains only a fractional representation of that group), or is there sort of a critical mass thing going on?

That's a really good question. There are multiple facets, most of which are poor reasons.

My strongest argument is that the overall framing device of the novel is reincarnation, which puts it in the speculative fiction realm for me. Even leaving that aside, it clearly presents some sort of alternate timeline extending into the past and future - aspects of alternate history in the Luisa Rey sections and obviously the futures shown by Sloosha's Crossing and the Sonmi stories. The spine of the story is built from the atoms of speculative fiction.

As a reader, I'm also much more familiar with the expectations and conventions of science fiction - I read it much more than other genre fiction, and so I can pick up on the tropes Mitchell is using more easily.

Argument from authority: the high priests and priestesses of science fiction have recognized their own and awarded it. If they can't spot science fiction, who can? (trick question).

And then, yes, it presents a concrete vision of the future, and for anything that does that there's an argument for it to be speculative fiction of some sort.

But really, I'd be willing to shrug and call it "literary fiction" just as easily, as long as the argument doesn't boil down to "it's good and serious and I like it and therefore it can't be genre fiction." (I am not accusing you or anyone else of this, of course - this is just the chip on my shoulder, again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Oh yeah, as I said I didn't think there was any malice or disrespect involved, and I'm sorry if I sounded like a douche bringing it up. It's just that trans* issues are kind of a Big Thing in my life for various reasons and it's something I care a lot about, and the notion that a transwoman/transman isn't a "real" woman/man comes up so often that I tend to jump at any sign of someone possibly holding that opinion. I'll stop going on about that now.

Anyway, the cast is overall great so far, and as a couple of others said it makes me pick up books I probably wouldn't have read otherwise which is great. I'm even cautiously looking forward to the Cloud Atlas film after loving the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, just finished listening to the podcast and it was great, I really enjoyed it. I thought your criticism of the trailer was pretty harsh though! I haven't seen the film, so for all I know it could be utter garbage, but I thought the trailer was great. It seemed to me like they were adapting the material as a reasonably loose base with which to build an epic Hollywood blockbuster. It's probably impossible to film a faithful adaptation of the source material anyway, so I have no problem with them making a film which adapts the book on its own terms (and all adaptations should be on their own terms anyway). I've no doubt it will lack much of the book's subtlety, but I think it has the potential to be not only very entertaining, but also emotionally engaging and thought-provoking. I haven't seen it yet so it could be utter garbage, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished this book. I'm just going to put some unstructured thoughts out there. Like Chris and Sean I went into this pretty much blind. I loved the changing narrative structure and how well realized all the characters were. I was totally bummed out by what I found to be relatively explicit reincarnation stuff though. It seemed so unnecessary. The themes that existed in each story, not to mention the various times when Mitchell basically spells it out, seemed like more than enough to tie the novel together. I generally didn't care for each character finding the previous stories (kinda corny), but I did love when Frobisher reads Andy Ewing's journal and immediately recognized how Goose was conning him...such a great insight into both Ewing and Frobisher's minds. Also the Sloosha Crossin section reminded me of a book I read recently, Ridley Walker, where the devolved post apocalypse language is even more extreme. Anyway, good book/cast.

Oh, and is Infinite Jest the Far Cry 2 of the Book Cast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infinite Jest is the Far Cry 2 of books.

I thought it was kind of funny when Sean and Chris were discussing Sloosha's Crossin' section and about how adapting to reading that kind of language. I was reminded heavily myself of Maribou Stork Nightmares, a book I loved when I read it about 3 years ago, and was idly saying to my car radio "Have either of you guys ever read Irvine Welsh?" when Sean brought him up specifically. Good pull, Sean.

As for disliking the Luisa Rey section, I actually totally loved it. It was pulpy and trashy, but so what? Those books are popular because they're fun. It felt like a nice bit of levity in an otherwise very serious book. While the occasional quips of Frobisher and the ending of Cavendish's section also had me chuckling to myself, Rey's whole portion of the book just felt very refreshing alongside everything else. It wasn't my favourite, but I thought it was great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the movie's wide release date coming up this Friday, there seems to be a lot more coverage of it in the press. I found this article particularly interesting, because it discusses the weird race issues that are in the movie:

http://hyperallergic.com/58869/ethnic-cleansing-colorblind-casting-in-cloud-atlas/

Here's a particularly choice quote: "Among the several characters she plays in the film, Korean actress Bae Doona does don blonde hair and blue eyes for at least two of them. Halle Berry, also, lightens her skin and eyes to play a white socialite in the 1930s. Of course, having a minority actress play a white character does not and cannot negate the legacy of racial discrimination inherent in the use of blackface. If anything, it just makes the whole situation worse. The filmmakers labor under the misapprehension that their work resides in some sort of vacuum, free of wider cultural context, or in that unicorn domain known as the “post-racial” society. This blissfully naïve understanding proceeds from the dominant point-of-view, the white point-of-view."

The choice to cast the same actor as multiple characters, and then to CGI the white actors to look Asian, is such a weird, insulting choice and I hope more people point out how problematic the whole situation is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finished the book and listened to the cast today. Both were very enjoyable.

One thing that really surprised me in the book was the self-deprecation, or at least insecurity which pops up.

In Frobisher's reading of the supposed journal of Adam Ewing, not only does he see the twist ending from a mile away (as spork armada points out), but he's unconvinced by the attempt at period language.

Frobisher also casts doubt upon his own work, wondering if the structure of the Cloud Atlas Sextet will come off as a gimmick. The structure of the sextet is the same as the novel itself.

Mitchell's voice comes through in the end when he (as Ewing) lays down the morality, but he uses Frobisher to express himself in an entirely different way. I loved that, and thought it was a great way to gently deflate things before it all felt too overblown.

How the heck do you make a movie out of this?

One other minor observation: I liked how Zachry's oral account reports Meronym's dialog in Valleysman vernacular. That whole section worked way better for me than I would have expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the heck do you make a movie out of this?

Badly?

I'm not saying a good movie based on Cloud Atlas absolutely couldn't be done ("never say never" and all...e.g. Naked Lunch which ought to have been unfilmable but succeeds on some level IMO because it is nothing like the book), but from what's out there about the Wachowski version, they don't sound like the ones to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmm

I remember watching the Graham Norton show months ago when Hugh Grant was on, and when Graham asked him what he was currently filming he said that he was playing a cannibal chief and that he just felt awkward and it was all a bit silly... literally didn't have a good word to say about the film and just quickly changed the subject

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny stuff. I don't think he sounds particularly down on the film.

The "featurette" you posted above makes it look like an interesting project, at least. It still seems to me like a crazy thing to even attempt. It's like a hail mary pass for the Wachowskis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny stuff. I don't think he sounds particularly down on the film.

Just miss-remembering, i'm pretty sure this went out before any of the publicity images or anything was shown of the film

So being pretty hyped up since hearing that they were making a cloud atlas movie and than having this as my first insight, bummed me out slightly. I was hoping he was going to say the film will be amazing but instead tells a funny little anecdote. Remember, this was way back when there was still a chance of the movie being a success :P

I have no real desire to watch this movie anymore, especially with it being so long. And i can't help but feel it would be a better movie without Forest Gump and Catwoman

Tom Hanks, is Tom Hanks is tom-hanks-trash-can.jpg. I just think it'll be even harder to suspend belief with him being such a high profile actor. Where as Hugh Grant is kinda perfect as he hasn't been on the scene much lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't read the topic, but just finished the book and the cast today. Also I've been playing a bunch of Hotline Miami. When Chris read the part where Bill Smoke kills Sixsmith I felt like that really captured the feel of that game. I also felt really bad about wanting to play that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finished the book and cast today. I've only perused some of this thread, so maybe this has already been discussed.

I'm surprised that the reincarnation interpretation surprised Chris and Sean. I thought it was pretty overt with the comet birthmark, Luisa Rey being so connected to the Cloud Atlast Sextet, and some other parts that I can't quite recall. Particularly, I thought this line at the end of the second Somni-451 chapter really drilled it home:

What do you wish to download?

A certain disney I began, one nite long ago in another age.

That said, I do agree that it would have functioned better without all those particular connections. I liked the connectedness, but would have preferred connections of happenstance, rather than what seemed to be fate-like occurrences.

Still, I found the whole read to be very entertaining. I also felt really dumb reading The Adam Ewing chapters. I was referencing a dictionary ever third sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I skipped a lot of the posts, but does the book explicitly say Luisa Rey's story is fictional? I thought it's just a manuscript Cavendish received. The book that got Cavendish in hot water was a true crime autobiography, which sort of set the stage for him being a publisher of bold criminal biographies. I assumed the book was written by Luisa's contact in the environmental group. The podcast seemed really hung up on the fiction aspect, but I didn't think that was explicit, or even get that from it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for disliking the Luisa Rey section, I actually totally loved it. It was pulpy and trashy, but so what? Those books are popular because they're fun. It felt like a nice bit of levity in an otherwise very serious book. While the occasional quips of Frobisher and the ending of Cavendish's section also had me chuckling to myself, Rey's whole portion of the book just felt very refreshing alongside everything else. It wasn't my favourite, but I thought it was great.

I think, aside from Frobisher, all the sections are pretty effectively pulpy, though the presentation is novel and elevates it. (not that there is anything wrong with pulp). Ewing's section is LOST TRIBES! PIRATES! ESCAPED SLAVES! MAD POISONER! I can see the 1950s movie poster.

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