Ghostwritten

If you enjoyed reading 'Cloud Atlas' you'll probably like this one as well. It is a bit more complicated, because there are just more stories, but the relation between each story is much more obvious. I especially liked, that it isn't just past-present-future but different times in gernal and also different nations. I am not sure what to make of the terrorist guy in the first story, but I bet it is up to the reader.

I think I've said it before: I am not a big fan of short stories. I tend to only read them if I really like the author. Although this is not a collection of short stories, it is a "novel in nine parts". Each of these parts is a stand-alone story although they are all interconnected by themes, motifs, relationships and evens. The reason why I normally don't like short stories is that it tends to take a long time to connect to the characters and setting and as soon as you have managed to get into the flow of things the story concludes and the characters vanish. At least that is how I feel about most specimen of this genre. Since the genre forces the writer and the reader to ration the time spent at a certain place or with a certain character, it is harder to read a story where the characterization takes up too much of that time. On the other hand, there is not much to a story that lacks a well-rounded character. So if you use most of your writing time and space to describe your characters and settings you might have to cut the plot short. In [b:Ghostwritten|6819|Ghostwritten|David Mitchell|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1320415093s/6819.jpg|1094555] Mitchell manages to establish his characters and their surroundings within the first few sentences of every chapter / story. This made it very easy to just go along with the plot without having to "get to know the characters" because I felt I already knew them. For me Mitchell has thus accomplished something almost no other writer can do. Additionally, the stories are so well connected and the effect when you decipher the connections and see all the motifs and themes repeat themselves is quite satisfying and - yes - fun! However, I can't say I've seen all the connections. This is a novel that lends itself to rereading and rediscovering. You can read the whole thing or parts of it again and again and probably still discover new connections and hints. For the record, my favourites were Holy Mountain, Mongolia, and London. All of them for different reasons... and this where the ramble follows. Sorry in advance. Holy Mountain manages to tell a life story of a mountain dwelling woman from girlhood to old age within about 40 pages. And as if this alone is not an accomplishment in itself, the story is so full of emotions and violence and spirituality that I could not get over how beautiful and special this is. In Mongolia the novel reaches its magical realism peak, which to me is always a winner. 'Nuff said. And London is a fine example of the way Mitchell has with characterizing places as well as people. The love for this city is palpable in this - albeit, it is a grumpy and old kind of love. There is so much more I could say about this masterpiece but I will leave it at that and stop the rambling. I enjoyed this novel a lot. Much more than I did his more famous work [b:Cloud Atlas|49628|Cloud Atlas|David Mitchell|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1344305390s/49628.jpg|1871423]. And I am definitely going to read [b:number9dream|6820|number9dream|David Mitchell|http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1320540682s/6820.jpg|1439] soon!

Wahrscheinlich tue ich dem Buch unrecht. Das spricht mich nach 120 Seiten weder inhaltlich noch stilistisch an. Dieses Erzählen in mehreren Kurzgeschichten, die miteinander verwoben sind, ist überhaupt nicht mein Ding. Extrem viele bescheuerte Vergleiche, die an Nonsens erinnern. Grobe, derbe Sprache, die mich abstößt. Da springt nix über.