Should I read David Mitchell?

Should I read David Mitchell? It's almost become a responsibility of good literary citizenship to do so. He has been coronated, he has won the triple crown, within a week a New Yorker review (by James Wood), a times magazine profile, and a NYTBR cover review (by David Eggers). Does endorsement come any higher and more suddenly than this? Yes, The Thousand Autumns for Jan De Groot, or whatever the name of his new novel is, is his sixth book (in about 11) years and yes as all of the stories note three of his previous 5 have been Booker finalists and yes Cloud Atlas is much-talked about - but the powers that be have chosen the current moment to anoint him, to recognize the current king of high-brow literary ambition (often a brit, there have been a few recent pretenders to the throne, since the passage of D F Wallace and the impenetrability of Vollman - think of that book from last year about a 19t-c mapmaker that many talked of but nobody so far as I know actually read). I will read Mitchell. In fact, I have read Mitchell, or tried to, taking up Black Swan Green and finding it, well, OK, but not in the end something I wanted to devote all that much time to - yet I understand that it's a somewhat atypical work for him. Reading between the lines of Eggers and Wood, it seems that neither of them actually loved reading Thousand Autumns, though each respects deeply Mitchell's talent, maybe even genious (judging from the NYT mag, he's also something of a sketch artist and collagist). I will probably take up Cloud Atlas. The question is: is he a writer that anyone acually does enjoy reading, or is he just something that we stand before in awe, like monument or the Pacific (silent on a peak in Darien)?