James Wood reviews David Mitchell's The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet.
The jacket copy of “Cloud Atlas” mentions Nabokov and Umberto Eco, and calls Mitchell a “postmodern visionary.” This is true enough, but one is struck by the gestural nature of Mitchell’s postmodernism. You could remove all the literary self-consciousness without smothering the novel’s ontology, or coarsening its intricacy. It is not exactly that Mitchell’s heart isn’t in his authorial games; to put it positively, the persuasive vitality of his stories is strong enough to frighten off their own alienation. The novellas have a life of their own, and will not be easily burgled—which is to say that they function like all successful fictions. The revelation that, say, Adam Ewing’s journal might have been fabricated by his son, or that Luisa Rey’s journalistic crusade in California might just be a thriller written by someone with the nom de plume of Hilary V. Hush, actually strengthens the autonomous reality of these fictions. This is the opposite of the weak postmodernism of a writer like Paul Auster, whose moments of metafictional self-consciousness—“Look, it’s all made up!”—are weightless, because the fictions themselves have failed to achieve substance: a diet going on a diet. In this respect, Mitchell is more like Nabokov (or José Saramago, or the Roth of “The Counterlife”) than like the feebler novelistic creator Umberto Eco. Of course, the paradox whereby the exposure of fiction’s fictionality only buttresses its reality is at least as old as the second part of “Don Quixote,” and reminds us of the ancestral postmodernism of the novel form.
I'm totaly with Wood on this one. He clearly shows how Mitchell's post-modernism differs from that of so many others. I still haven't recovered from "The Cloud Atlas".
Posted by: Niall | July 01, 2010 at 08:42 PM
I respect Wood and all, but when he says things like "The persuasive vitality of his stories is strong enough to frighten off their own alienation" he tends to lose me.
Posted by: GG Gaynor | July 02, 2010 at 05:46 AM
GG - You're right, that's very awkwardly expressed. But his general point is still interesting: That Mitchell's story telling ability makes his modernism less distancing than it is in other authors. Which I think is a valid point. Wood just needs a better editor.
Posted by: Niall | July 02, 2010 at 08:34 AM
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, I just think Wood is a little too stuffy for his own good now and then.
I will admit I might be the only person on the planet who gave up on Cloud Atlas at about the 2/3 point.
Black Swan Green, though, that was a nice little bildungsroman right there.
Posted by: GG Gaynor | July 02, 2010 at 12:10 PM
GG: Slusha's Crossing was the worst part of the novel, which is where most people who give up on it give up.
Posted by: Niall | July 03, 2010 at 02:54 PM
GG: Honestly, "too stuffy for his own good" does not cover it for me. This review borders on literary masturbation for me. I enjoyed the book, but not this review.
Posted by: Kathleen | July 03, 2010 at 07:16 PM
Whatever happens David Mitchell's new novel of interlinked narratives, Cloud Atlas, takes the reader on a rollercoaster ride And you won't want to get off. No more debate
Posted by: happy | July 07, 2010 at 08:56 PM
I don't get the fascination with self-consciousness.
Enjoyed the review a lot, though.
Posted by: Shelley | July 13, 2010 at 01:44 PM
Everything OK with Mark?
Posted by: Drew | July 16, 2010 at 06:57 PM
Has this blog gone dark?
Posted by: Alistair | July 20, 2010 at 11:42 AM
just want to say that i am tired of james wood sticking it to paul auster. did auster steal his girlfriend in college or something? it's relentless!
Posted by: peter carman | August 06, 2010 at 05:34 PM
GG, you aren't alone. I made it through "Cloud Atlas" but found it more slog than pleasure, more clever than heart, more post-modern than just plain good.
I think my issue with Mitchell is that his earlier works, especially "number9dream," feel like Haruki Murakami light. All the surreal magic, not so much of the depth underneath.
That said, in his recent Paris Review interview, that I did find very interesting, Mitchell admits he did once have a big crush on Japan's most famous living author and made it sound like something he has gotten over. In light of this (the getting over Murakami - a thing I have yet to do, by a long shot - and the interesting interview he gave) I think I'm gonna give his new work a shot. Cause even when his work hasn't quite bowled me over, it's still managed to stay with me.
Posted by: Jonathan Mendelsohn | August 23, 2010 at 07:33 PM