Members with This Book
Most Helpful Reviews
see all reviews
Liked It “One of those books that leaves me hesitant to start reading another because I can't stop thinking about this one.” see full review » see other reviews » |
Newest Reviews
see all reviews-
“wow”
pakishman wrote this review Friday, October 16 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No“One of those books that leaves me hesitant to start reading another because I can't stop thinking about this one.”
shane c wrote this review Monday, April 27 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“Truly amazing! There are no words to describe the emotions and excitement this book arouses. True it is a collection of story threads which are supposed to connect but they are so gripping and beautifully written that one has to experiences it more than reading it. This book will take you to great places so confidently that you'll never forget them. It's impossible to pigeonhole this in one genre. Dark, sinister, funny and dangerous - a must read!”
shazzy wrote this review Thursday, April 9 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“I guess Mitchell was practicing here what he did better in Cloud Atlas; a surreal story based around different storylines. This one is nice but not nearly as good as Cloud Atlas.”
xroldx e wrote this review Monday, January 5 2009. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)
jasonpettus wrote this review Wednesday, December 17 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
Although I haven't brought up the subject here in awhile, the fact is that as a book critic and a lover of underground literature, it's important to me to become a "completist" of certain artists out there, or in other words to have consumed every single artistic project they've ever done. After all, I'm behind on a lot of this stuff compared to other critics my age -- I spent my twenties and early thirties as a working author myself, concentrating much more on writing my own books than reading other people's; and that leaves me near the age of forty with just these sometimes giant holes in my underground-arts education, embarrassing holes that as a critic I absolutely shouldn't have.
Take, oh, say, David Mitchell for example, who over the course of a decade now and four celebrated novels (three of them nominated for the freaking Booker) has become widely acknowledged as one of the best living surrealist authors on the planet; but before this week I hadn't ever read a single word by him, which should be some sort of crime against the underground arts if it isn't already. And it just so happens that one of the Chicago library branches up here by my place owns all four of Mitchell's books (I'm looking at you, cute nerdy acquisitions manager with the clunky glasses), so I've decided to finally start tackling them all myself, starting with the oldest, 1999's Ghostwritten. And that of course brings up one of the interesting things sometimes about reading the early work of someone who's now famous for their mature work; because many times, although not out-and-out terrible, such novels simply won't hold up to the "early masterpiece" hype of later years, or will contain diamonds in the rough that the author ends up polishing in later work, or sometimes are just so influential that they become blasé later in history, simply for all the ripoffs that came afterwards.
That's something you can honestly say about Ghostwritten too, although I found it more interesting than disappointing; that when all is said and done, the novel is essentially a British guy writing like Haruki Murakami, back in the late '90s before most English-speakers had heard of Murakami, making it not nearly the revelation anymore that I'm sure it was to Western audiences when it first came out. It's essentially what filmmaker Richard Linklater calls "vertical storytelling," a collection of tales that are mostly unrelated but with a series of fascinating synchronicity-style details, small decisions within some stories that will sometimes have devastating major consequences in others, with the chapters set around the world but especially in many Asian countries, and examining among other things the various stereotypical ways that Asians think of other Asians when white people aren't looking. All of these stories, though, have some sort of metaphysical or poetic element to them, and are written with an engaging mix of Asian minimalism and British fascination with language; one for example concerns a poltergeist in a yuppie apartment in Hong Kong, one a subway-bombing cult member hiding out from the cops in Okinawa, one a jazz-loving hipster teen in the middle of downtown Tokyo.
Ten years later, we've gotten a lot more used to these things -- metaphysical elements in our mainstream fiction, the influence of Asian minimalism on Western literature -- but when it first came out, seeing it in Ghostwritten I'm sure made a lot of people freak out in a pleasantly positive way, which I'm sure is how Mitchell gained his intense cult following to begin with, and what allowed him to go on and kick out three Booker nominees in a row after this one. And let's face it, even this novel isn't bad, even ten years later when many of its tropes have become a lot more common; even with this very first book of his, Mitchell displays a confidence in his material usually only seen in veteran authors, a relaxed assuredness with what is already experimental work, being written at a time when there were literally no precedents for it in English-language literature. Granted, I suspect at this point that his later books are going to be even better, and that readers not purposely trying to become Mitchell completists might want to actually skip this first one; then again, you might not, especially if your interest in weird lit is only a passing one, and if you mostly prefer the narrative feet of your stories planted firmly on realistic ground. I can definitely say, though, that I'm glad I read Ghostwritten; and I can also definitely say that I'm eagerly looking forward to his next, 2001's big breakthough hit number9dream, which hopefully I'll be tackling before too terribly long.”
“Effectively the same novel as Cloud Atlas but slightly less fun (I read Cloud Atlas first which might have something to do with that).”
Richard H wrote this review Thursday, November 6 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“My favorite of Mitchell's books because I felt as though I could actually relate to some of his characters (though they are bizarre at times). I also like the fact that all the characters/events are related to each other in some way. This is Mitchell's first book, and his other ones (especially _Number 9 Dream_ and _Cloud Atlas_) employ similar plot devices, and share similar themes.”
muque and shylock tomes wrote this review Tuesday, September 23 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
“Hmmm... disappointed. Although i cant put my finger on it, there was something big lacking in Ghostwritten. A soul. A real story. Maybe i was expecting too much. Maybe I'm not able to relate to most of the stories because of who i am. But i definitely felt Cloud Atlas was a much
Naresh wrote this review Wednesday, June 18 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
better work by Mitchell. Yes, i know Ghostwritten was written before Cloud Atlas.
The parts i really liked -
a) Story of Satoru the Sax player in Tokyo. Beautiful.
b) Exploits of Marco in London - This one was neat. "very cool"
c) Noncorpum's travels through Mongolia - took me a while to figure out what was happening. Gripping chase. lovely ending.
d) Late night radio show with Bat Segundo in Night Train - his monologues/ramblings kicked butt.
Hong Kong and Petersburg were bearable only because Mitchell took us through the pages with a carrot in front - the sex scenes.
Okinawa, Clear Island completely sucked. Maybe because i dont like Sci-fi. I've never read Sci-fi. I dont believe in Sci-fi. It is forced suspension of disbelief. doesn't work for me.
Holy Mountain was okay.
In the end i felt cheated. Like someone had pulled a cheap trick on me. Sure, Mitchell has a brilliant mastery of the language. His experiments with the different styles work well in many stories. Sure, he has a wonderful imagination and can spin a good yarn. But there's something definitely lacking.
I'd still recommend the book though. If you like a variety in your stories.”
“A must read book
Jabs wrote this review Tuesday, June 10 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
Mitchell seems to like writing faintly connected stories that only make sense when you reach the end.
similar to the excellent Cloud Atlas but not as commercial or straight forward as Number9 dream.”
“Nine different stories, told by different people across time, and all of their tales revolve around one future event. A simple synopsis for a complex, yet thoughtfully interwoven plots.
Dazzling Mage wrote this review Sunday, June 1 2008. ( reply | permalink ) Was this review helpful? Yes | No
From vulgarity, to innocence, and so on. The stories had different themes, but were all equally connected. I enjoyed reading this, even if I did have to struggle a bit with it. And as expected from this sort of book, it ended back where it started. ”
