Here’s a geometric/structured/algebriac breakdown of the relationship between Luckacs and Mitchell:
Let Lukacs = L,
Form = f, content = c
Mitchell=M
Let f be directly proportional to c [f:c]
If L + M(f x c)= Cloud Atlas, then Cloud Atlas= L + M/(f x c)
In English:
If Lukacs is sprinkled in with Mitchell and we are to believe that form is a direct result of content, then Cloud Atlas is Mitchell, and additionally Lukacs, divided by the relationship between form and content. Thus, Mitchell is at once directly playing with the idea that form is dependent on content and rejecting the notion of cohesive novel form altogether.
What I think I’m trying to say is, Mitchell is somehow working at two ends of the spectrum. He is writing a novel using a very specific form because of the unusual V-shaped narrative structure we discussed in class, but at the same time it could be argued that he’s not writing a novel at all but a series of novellas or short stories with subtle ties to similar histories and characters.
Anyway…
I’ve been reading about David Mitchell because I’m a hater (and I never use that term, I hate the term hater, but there’s no other way to describe it). He seems to me at once an pretentious prick and a genius. Ugh. But I found it interesting that one of his more frequently repeated quotes from an interview with BBC radio is concerning Cloud Atlas is his take on what the book is really about:
“The book’s theme is predacity … individuals prey on individuals, groups on groups, nations on nations.”
First of all, I’m not positive predacity is a word, but that’s beside the point. The point is I don’t know if I would have picked up on this overall theme myself, or if I would have decided this was the overarching theme at all. I guess I can’t really disagree with freaking David Mitchell since her wrote the damn book, but I find this characterization puzzling. I obviously haven’t finished the book yet, but if I had to say at this point, I’d say the theme of Cloud Atlas is cause and effect. We see the fruits and damages of human interaction, but not all of the results (thus far in the novel) are negative. Predacity has an incredibly negative tone, and I understand the novel eventually turns into a dystopic, post-apocolyptic novella so perhaps I’ll change my mind, but I didn’t feel like Cloud Atlas was a hopeless novel. Predacity = hopeless, in my twisted algebra that seems to be the only way I can communicated today. Is it just me?
I like the way you look at the novel, Cloud Atlas, and Lucaks theory of form of the novel and content agrees with some of the conventions of Cloud Atlas.
I like so far how Michell is having the characters relate in the other novellas or chapters. That Robert Frobisher shows up in Luisa Rey reading the letters to Sixsmith to find out the truth of his murder. Then Luisa’s stories show up in the Cavendish story. I hope all these stories will be shown a connection and point at the end of this book.
Dude,
What’s with the math??? I thought we we’re all English majors here…
Anyway, Mitchell is all about the form. That’s why I don’t understand why everyone gets all bent over the characters. They are not driving these novellas. The ideologies of the time periods as well as the different froms of the novel are what we should be focusing on. Not whether or not we like a character.
Nice analysis on Lukacs & Mitchell. I prefer the English version.
I lost you at the equation–that might be why I’m an English major. I can see you are multi-talented! I think you are right to see the link between cause and effect in the different stories. I definitely think that makes much more sense than even the own author’s made-up-word theme. And I agree, I am at once jealous I did not come up with such a form, and impressed that someone did. I think the overall concept is awesome, even though some of the individual parts are definitely not my cup of tea.