I'm worried this review will be a little incoherent because my thoughts about this book are pretty jumbled. JUST LIKE A DAVID MITCHELL NOVEL, BA-ZING-GA! Anyway.
Part of the reason I wanted to try Number9Dream after not liking Cloud Atlas is because it seemed from the description like it would be a more linear storyline without multiple plot lines. So many people kept telling me what a great writer Mitchell is that I thought it was maybe just the structure of Cloud Atlas that put me off. HOW WRONG I WAS on both counts! It turns out that this book is written chronologically but has tons of imaginary interludes and diversions that break up the main plot. I get having a particular writing style, tons of authors do that. I'm just not really sure why Mitchell sticks with this experimental style when from my experience he's just...not that good at it. Maybe the point of using constant imaginary scenes is to make us lose trust in anything being real? I don't know, I'm trying to give credit for some deeper meaning behind the structure but honestly when the first 25 pages turn out to be a daydream it really puts a dent in my interest going forward. Also, it seems kind of dangerous to "pay homage" (imitate might be a better word) to Murakami not only in your writing style but also on his turf. Murakami fans are better equipped than me to say if it works or not. It just seems risky.
I guess I haven't actually written much about this book specifically yet in this review. There were things I liked; I think Mitchell has a good handle on setting and his description of Tokyo is vivid and lifelike. Chapter 6 was really well-done, which in a way is even MORE frustrating! I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT. STOP MESSING WITH US. Chapters like this show that Mitchell IS a good writer who can design and communicate an interesting and well-written story. But he is so obsessed with gimmicks and communicating some deeper meaning that the plot and character development often take a back seat to whatever literary trick he is currently trying to perform. He has some absolutely beautiful sentences: "Be careful of vacations in paradise. You think too much about all the things you never did and never will do." and some real :/ sentences: "Enough books to make me wonder if I am a book too." I did appreciate the resolution of the main plot, although the actual ending of the book left me underwhelmed and confused (not confused about what was happening, confused that that was the ending everybody involved in this book decided to go with).
There were also lots of things about this novel I didn't like: the heavy-handedness in some sections (which was a complaint I had in Cloud Atlas as well), the CONSTANT misdirects and ham-handed ways of keeping information about his father from Eiji (all the false starts and stops-I'm not interested in seeing a functioning imagination at work, I want you to DO SOMETHING!), the references to writing and reader reaction within the novel (the dogs tear the scarecrow apart while saying "that'll learn him to give the plot away").
I guess where I ultimately come down on David Mitchell is that, for all his references to critics and discussion of authorial intent, it really does seem like he writes mostly for himself. Someone in another review referred to his writing style as "intellectual showboating" and I can see where that feeling comes from. Showing all the tricks you can do is notable and I'm sure it makes him feel as though he's really impressing people (and he obviously is impressing a lot of them) but I'm not a literary analyst; I'm just a reader who's looking for an engaging and coherent story and with a few chapter-by-chapter exceptions, I have yet to find that in a Mitchell novel.
In one section of the book an author character is shown to be eating the pages of his story as he writes them. I can't help wishing that Mitchell would have done the same.
Part of the reason I wanted to try Number9Dream after not liking Cloud Atlas is because it seemed from the description like it would be a more linear storyline without multiple plot lines. So many people kept telling me what a great writer Mitchell is that I thought it was maybe just the structure of Cloud Atlas that put me off. HOW WRONG I WAS on both counts! It turns out that this book is written chronologically but has tons of imaginary interludes and diversions that break up the main plot. I get having a particular writing style, tons of authors do that. I'm just not really sure why Mitchell sticks with this experimental style when from my experience he's just...not that good at it. Maybe the point of using constant imaginary scenes is to make us lose trust in anything being real? I don't know, I'm trying to give credit for some deeper meaning behind the structure but honestly when the first 25 pages turn out to be a daydream it really puts a dent in my interest going forward. Also, it seems kind of dangerous to "pay homage" (imitate might be a better word) to Murakami not only in your writing style but also on his turf. Murakami fans are better equipped than me to say if it works or not. It just seems risky.
I guess I haven't actually written much about this book specifically yet in this review. There were things I liked; I think Mitchell has a good handle on setting and his description of Tokyo is vivid and lifelike. Chapter 6 was really well-done, which in a way is even MORE frustrating! I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT. STOP MESSING WITH US. Chapters like this show that Mitchell IS a good writer who can design and communicate an interesting and well-written story. But he is so obsessed with gimmicks and communicating some deeper meaning that the plot and character development often take a back seat to whatever literary trick he is currently trying to perform. He has some absolutely beautiful sentences: "Be careful of vacations in paradise. You think too much about all the things you never did and never will do." and some real :/ sentences: "Enough books to make me wonder if I am a book too." I did appreciate the resolution of the main plot, although the actual ending of the book left me underwhelmed and confused (not confused about what was happening, confused that that was the ending everybody involved in this book decided to go with).
There were also lots of things about this novel I didn't like: the heavy-handedness in some sections (which was a complaint I had in Cloud Atlas as well), the CONSTANT misdirects and ham-handed ways of keeping information about his father from Eiji (all the false starts and stops-I'm not interested in seeing a functioning imagination at work, I want you to DO SOMETHING!), the references to writing and reader reaction within the novel (the dogs tear the scarecrow apart while saying "that'll learn him to give the plot away").
I guess where I ultimately come down on David Mitchell is that, for all his references to critics and discussion of authorial intent, it really does seem like he writes mostly for himself. Someone in another review referred to his writing style as "intellectual showboating" and I can see where that feeling comes from. Showing all the tricks you can do is notable and I'm sure it makes him feel as though he's really impressing people (and he obviously is impressing a lot of them) but I'm not a literary analyst; I'm just a reader who's looking for an engaging and coherent story and with a few chapter-by-chapter exceptions, I have yet to find that in a Mitchell novel.
In one section of the book an author character is shown to be eating the pages of his story as he writes them. I can't help wishing that Mitchell would have done the same.
