I think the reviewer gives short shrift to Cloud Atlas, even though acknowledging its literary facility. What I admired most about the novel was not its feats of ventriloquism, accomplished though they were, but the power of the spiritual and moral point that all these voices united to make. It was a relief to find a novel that was both unironic and self-effacing, dextrous but not so caught up in its own artifices that it ceased to mean anything.

-Niall Lynch

I've read all three of David Mitchell's books and they're solidly decent novels. His problem has less to do with that of a cribbed style (frankly I'm not sure what Miller means by our not really getting his genuine voice in his books, I think she just suspects he's not heartfelt or "sincere" enough) but has to do with his vaguely oriental philosophy, which is meant to bring all the random strands of life together, its possibilities and probabilites, and show how everything might really be connected, as they are in a novel. But this turns out to be too much for him to chew I think, too grandiose. I think possibly because despite his giving us a bit of violence and dystopia he never quite puts his weltanshaung to the test; he never really rips out the carpets of his worlds to show us the maggots underlying them that would rock our faith in that interlocking cosmicity of things he suggests. His experiments with chance lives that turn out to be patterned is subtly diverted into parody of literary devices and theatricality which are meant to be taken straight as well, so that he doesn't have to deal with things head on, can soft-soap them, let them turn out schlocky with a clean conscience. But then lots of the acclaimed or so called serious books that have come out in the last few years like "Atonement" or "Empire Falls" have had many crude and silly sentimental flaws that ruined their entire schemes, yet because the subjects they depict are deemed "important" or "timely" by critics they are judged as deep. I guess most of all, what I want Laura miller to do is explain what she means when she distinguishes between high and low. By the way I went and looked up some of the books she claimed "Cloud Atlas" ripped off, and despite certain situational similarities found them stylistically miles apart. Finally I wonder what "emotionally felt", a positive to Ms. Miller, can actually mean when we speak about something as inherently fake and calculated as a work of art. Can a book really be emotionally felt in any genuinely immediate sense? And if it could would this really be a desirable aesthetic? I know critics are always tossing around words like "intuitive" and "organic", and that these terms can have a limited meaning as applied to the act of writing, but they become shallow buzz terms when used as a basis for criticism; it's simply meant to disguise personal prejudice as sophisticated discernment. I.E. books which seem "playful", "smirky", or merely "entertaining" get on Miller's nerves because they aren't "genuinely" about something that makes her feel like she's a serious reader, or don't seem light enough to be obviously trashy fun. My point is that she's criticizing not the style, the structure, or philosophy of Mitchell's books, but how she interprets their texture and whether or not she believes the author thinks he's a notch above what he actually is. And how do I know this? Her whole hearted acceptance of a ghastly writer like Michael Cunningham, that's how.