Saturday, 21 August 2010

Cloud Atlas

Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell, written in 2004. I've read over half this book before deciding to quit. I don't see the appeal. Not when it's 500+ pages and huge parts of the book are a chore to read. For something that's so well praised, I was expecting something totally original (which I felt it wasn't), and something with a beautiful prose. It's won over 5 awards. Perhaps the end is really clever and imaginative? How can a book that gives you nothing back in return be hailed as such a masterpiece of modern literature?

The book has 6 or so stories that are loosely linked via themes. It's nothing to get in-depth about. Sources also clarify this -- not even remotely interesting. These stories differ completely. I'm referring to writing style. Which can be categorised into good, and bad. Tolerable, and tedious.

I haven't read anywhere that this book is well written, there's so much praise for how it's written. I call that pretentious. No matter how much free time or a devoted reader you are, if you read hundreds of pages just to call it "clever" rather than enjoyable, I call that pretentious... and that's giving it something.

The cover and the awards might make this a good book though.

No comments: