Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
challenging
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Despite buying [b:A Little Life|29408433|A Little Life|Hanya Yanagihara|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1456994166l/29408433._SY75_.jpg|42375710] in November of last year with the intention of reading it as soon as possible, I decided to hold off when I heard that Yanagihara would be releasing her next novel in January 2022. I'm glad I did because it meant that I could experience Yanagihara's writing without any of the hype surrounding the book's plots and characters. It's clear to me through To Paradise why Yanagihara's writing is so revered, and I'm going to try to break the review down by each book within this mammoth book.
Book I
The book is set in 1893 New York, though not the New York of the 19th century as we know it, but an alternate one where it and eight other states constitute the Free States nation. Free Staters are free to love whomever they please (to an extent) since the state was founded as a utopia by fourteen families, the Binghams being one of them. We meet David Bingham, the eldest heir of the Bingham family, who, unlike his two younger siblings, is unmarried and still lives at home with his grandfather. His grandfather has ensured that none of the Bingham siblings will want for anything, something that is made clear to us repeatedly throughout Book I, and it's clear that he loves his grandchildren deadly. However, there is a schism in David and his grandfather's communication. This, coupled with the fact that David lives to his grandfather's schedule and with a suspected mental illness (though this is entirely my suspicion based on events in the book), leads to a deep sense of dissatisfaction and unfulfillment on David's part. David is informed that a man of new money has expressed an interest in marrying him, and although Charles Griffiths is a respectable and suitable match, David finds himself unexpectedly drawn to Edward Bishop, a music teacher at the Bingham-funded orphanage without a penny to his name. What follows is an exploration of love, desire, and self-identity. Book I's ending is an unresolved one, allowing the reader to imagine the ending they want. I was personally left desperately wanting to believe that David would be alright, that he would get everything he hoped he would. But, I was also left with an overwhelming sense of sadness and aching for David.
It's hard not to become emotionally invested in David. I found myself mentally admonishing him for his poor choices, sympathising with him during his lows and highs, and even wanting to protect him from any emotional upset and harm. David's grandfather, though not as fully fleshed out as David yet still equally flawed, was also easy to love. Overall, I thought Yanagihara did a good job at writing the core characters; they never felt boring nor entirely predictable to me, however I understood the characters enough that their thoughts and actions seemed credible.
I thought the setting interesting. A collection of states that has brokered an arrangement with The American Union to become its own nation in exchange for paying taxation and providing military support to The American Union. While the Free States promotes an inclusive society where love is love, it is, in reality, far from inclusive, with blatant racism and xenophobia. Despite efforts to support (white) immigrants, whether they’re from The United Colonies in the South or from Europe, there is a sense of superiority from the Free Staters towards those from elsewhere. Those from the Colonies are perceived as ‘lesser than’, whereas Blacks are considered persona non-grata in the Free States -they are provided with an initial safe harbour upon arrival from the Colonies, but it is swiftly followed by the financial resources required to ensure that any Blacks are sent on their way to the American Union, Canada or the West. Meanwhile, Native Americans are still massacred across the Colonies, Free State and the American Unions. This is what makes the idea of what is described in the book as a ‘utopian’ society an interesting one. The Free States provides people with the opportunity to love a good life, free to love who they way, but in reality only some groups are free whereas others are excluded.
Book II
Unlike Book I, this book is split into two parts from two different perspectives and with two narrative styles for each part. I also thought that it was the weakest of the three Books, with the second part completely unnecessary.
Book II starts once again in New York, though, despite a familiar cast of characters, it's a different one to that of Book I. This time it's 1993, the height of the AIDS epidemic, and David is a paralegal at a law firm and happens to be in a secret relationship with Charles, one of the top lawyers at the firm. Their relationship is a secret, not so much because of the power-dynamic, but because being gay is frowned upon. The story takes place over the course of one night, with several flashbacks to help us understand David's, Charles', and their relationship's backstory. Charles is hosting one of his famous dinner parties, though this time it's a sombre occasion because Charles and his friends are bidding their friend Peter farewell. Peter isn't the first of their friends to die, but, mercifully, his impending death isn't because of that disease, rather advanced-stage cancer. Through the flashbacks, we learn that David left his family behind in Hawai'i to study on the mainland and that he has a tenuous if not a somewhat strained relationship with his father. Through his reflections on his relationship with Charles, we as readers are offered an opportunity to reflect on relationships that are unequal (in love, power, and wealth), the crassness and questionable importance of material luxuries, and a sense of belonging. The first part's ending feels a lot less open compared to the first, and honestly, had Book II been slightly more fleshed out to include more detail about David's childhood in Hawai'i, Book II could have easily ended there and left us all feeling satisfied.
Instead, in Part II, the story shifts to a first-person narrative as we follow along with the elder David (the David from Part I's father) as he reflects on his past from his vegetative state in what I can only assume to be a care home. Although allusions were made to the younger David's childhood in Hawai'i and the strained relationship between father and son in Part I, it's this vegetative David Sr who provides us with the backstory. The story is very much that of David Sr, the loneliness he endured growing up -despite not actively feeling lonely- the constant sense of his mother's disappointment in him for not living up to who he should be, the King of Hawai'i, if things had gone differently, and the pity, frustration, and resignation that his son feels towards him. Part II is very much tinged with disappointment, and I was left feeling disappointed and, quite frankly, bored. What was enjoyable about Part II is that it was an opportunity to reflect on national identity, on an indigenous people's identity, culture and self-perception as they slowly become the minority in a land that is no longer theirs. It's an opportunity to reflect on personal identity vs the identity and expectations others impose on you, and the consequences thereof. However, I stand by my opinion that Book II is completely unnecessary.
As for the characters, young David and Charlie were both loveable, and equally fleshed out, giving us a good sense of who they are and why they behave the way they do. As for David's dad, David Sr, I strongly disliked him. He was whiny, irritating, and downright unlikeable. It was hard for me to sympathise with him at all even when he was deserving of the reader's sympathy.
Book III
Book III on the other hand was the star of the show. Once more split over two perspectives, it tells the story of a young woman called Charlie living in Zone Eight, New York's new name in 2093. She is a survivor of one of the many pandemics that have taken place throughout the 21st century, and we are introduced to what life could look like after decades of pandemics, each one worse than its predecessor, and a climate crisis that world leaders failed to acknowledge until it was too late. Despite being set in a dystopian state in a decade I will unlikely live to see, Book III hits very close to home, reminding me of the anxious thoughts that I was confronted with on a daily basis throughout the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. We learn about life in Zone Eight, Charlie's job, her life, her family. We learn that her grandfather was killed and that her husband disappears every Thursday night, presumably to meet with the person who has written him love notes that Charlie happens across one day. Through her grandfather's letters to a man called Peter, we learn about Charlie's father and her other grandfather. We are given insight into how New York slowly became this authoritarian and dystopian state, with contamination and relocation centres that are too reminiscent of the WWII death camps.
Book III is bleak, with the most upsetting ending despite moments of hope and light throughout. I also enjoyed the reference to Book I, despite it being unclear whether the two books are even set in the same alternate USA. Although it was the strongest of the three books and could have easily been a standalone novel, it took me the longest to get through because of how reminiscent it was of our ongoing pandemic. Yanagihara uses people's fears of illness and death to reflect on some of the atrocities humans are guilty of committing, such as leaving friends out to die in the street alone or informing on neighbours and friends. The ending, just like Book I, leaves you clutching your hair, heart, and anything else really, as you hope for Charlie's safety and freedom.
Just as with the previous two books, Yanagihara's writing of the characters not only made it hard not to grow fond of them but made them very lifelike too. It felt as though I was reading about real people and their real lives, despite the fact that the book was set nearly 70 years in our future.
Just as the characters' names and Washington Square are a constant in all three books, there are common themes throughout too, such as loneliness, unrequited love, status, power and the strained relationship between (grand)fathers and sons. Each book also provides us with food for thought on different aspects of society, something I've been told is quintessentially Yanagihara. It was, for me, a great introduction to Yanagihara's writing and a brilliantly written book. I would have given this a glowing 5 stars had it not been for Part II of Book II.
Book I
The book is set in 1893 New York, though not the New York of the 19th century as we know it, but an alternate one where it and eight other states constitute the Free States nation. Free Staters are free to love whomever they please (to an extent) since the state was founded as a utopia by fourteen families, the Binghams being one of them. We meet David Bingham, the eldest heir of the Bingham family, who, unlike his two younger siblings, is unmarried and still lives at home with his grandfather. His grandfather has ensured that none of the Bingham siblings will want for anything, something that is made clear to us repeatedly throughout Book I, and it's clear that he loves his grandchildren deadly. However, there is a schism in David and his grandfather's communication. This, coupled with the fact that David lives to his grandfather's schedule and with a suspected mental illness (though this is entirely my suspicion based on events in the book), leads to a deep sense of dissatisfaction and unfulfillment on David's part. David is informed that a man of new money has expressed an interest in marrying him, and although Charles Griffiths is a respectable and suitable match, David finds himself unexpectedly drawn to Edward Bishop, a music teacher at the Bingham-funded orphanage without a penny to his name. What follows is an exploration of love, desire, and self-identity. Book I's ending is an unresolved one, allowing the reader to imagine the ending they want. I was personally left desperately wanting to believe that David would be alright, that he would get everything he hoped he would. But, I was also left with an overwhelming sense of sadness and aching for David.
It's hard not to become emotionally invested in David. I found myself mentally admonishing him for his poor choices, sympathising with him during his lows and highs, and even wanting to protect him from any emotional upset and harm. David's grandfather, though not as fully fleshed out as David yet still equally flawed, was also easy to love. Overall, I thought Yanagihara did a good job at writing the core characters; they never felt boring nor entirely predictable to me, however I understood the characters enough that their thoughts and actions seemed credible.
I thought the setting interesting. A collection of states that has brokered an arrangement with The American Union to become its own nation in exchange for paying taxation and providing military support to The American Union. While the Free States promotes an inclusive society where love is love, it is, in reality, far from inclusive, with blatant racism and xenophobia. Despite efforts to support (white) immigrants, whether they’re from The United Colonies in the South or from Europe, there is a sense of superiority from the Free Staters towards those from elsewhere. Those from the Colonies are perceived as ‘lesser than’, whereas Blacks are considered persona non-grata in the Free States -they are provided with an initial safe harbour upon arrival from the Colonies, but it is swiftly followed by the financial resources required to ensure that any Blacks are sent on their way to the American Union, Canada or the West. Meanwhile, Native Americans are still massacred across the Colonies, Free State and the American Unions. This is what makes the idea of what is described in the book as a ‘utopian’ society an interesting one. The Free States provides people with the opportunity to love a good life, free to love who they way, but in reality only some groups are free whereas others are excluded.
Book II
Unlike Book I, this book is split into two parts from two different perspectives and with two narrative styles for each part. I also thought that it was the weakest of the three Books, with the second part completely unnecessary.
Book II starts once again in New York, though, despite a familiar cast of characters, it's a different one to that of Book I. This time it's 1993, the height of the AIDS epidemic, and David is a paralegal at a law firm and happens to be in a secret relationship with Charles, one of the top lawyers at the firm. Their relationship is a secret, not so much because of the power-dynamic, but because being gay is frowned upon. The story takes place over the course of one night, with several flashbacks to help us understand David's, Charles', and their relationship's backstory. Charles is hosting one of his famous dinner parties, though this time it's a sombre occasion because Charles and his friends are bidding their friend Peter farewell. Peter isn't the first of their friends to die, but, mercifully, his impending death isn't because of that disease, rather advanced-stage cancer. Through the flashbacks, we learn that David left his family behind in Hawai'i to study on the mainland and that he has a tenuous if not a somewhat strained relationship with his father. Through his reflections on his relationship with Charles, we as readers are offered an opportunity to reflect on relationships that are unequal (in love, power, and wealth), the crassness and questionable importance of material luxuries, and a sense of belonging. The first part's ending feels a lot less open compared to the first, and honestly, had Book II been slightly more fleshed out to include more detail about David's childhood in Hawai'i, Book II could have easily ended there and left us all feeling satisfied.
Instead, in Part II, the story shifts to a first-person narrative as we follow along with the elder David (the David from Part I's father) as he reflects on his past from his vegetative state in what I can only assume to be a care home. Although allusions were made to the younger David's childhood in Hawai'i and the strained relationship between father and son in Part I, it's this vegetative David Sr who provides us with the backstory. The story is very much that of David Sr, the loneliness he endured growing up -despite not actively feeling lonely- the constant sense of his mother's disappointment in him for not living up to who he should be, the King of Hawai'i, if things had gone differently, and the pity, frustration, and resignation that his son feels towards him. Part II is very much tinged with disappointment, and I was left feeling disappointed and, quite frankly, bored. What was enjoyable about Part II is that it was an opportunity to reflect on national identity, on an indigenous people's identity, culture and self-perception as they slowly become the minority in a land that is no longer theirs. It's an opportunity to reflect on personal identity vs the identity and expectations others impose on you, and the consequences thereof. However, I stand by my opinion that Book II is completely unnecessary.
As for the characters, young David and Charlie were both loveable, and equally fleshed out, giving us a good sense of who they are and why they behave the way they do. As for David's dad, David Sr, I strongly disliked him. He was whiny, irritating, and downright unlikeable. It was hard for me to sympathise with him at all even when he was deserving of the reader's sympathy.
Book III
Book III on the other hand was the star of the show. Once more split over two perspectives, it tells the story of a young woman called Charlie living in Zone Eight, New York's new name in 2093. She is a survivor of one of the many pandemics that have taken place throughout the 21st century, and we are introduced to what life could look like after decades of pandemics, each one worse than its predecessor, and a climate crisis that world leaders failed to acknowledge until it was too late. Despite being set in a dystopian state in a decade I will unlikely live to see, Book III hits very close to home, reminding me of the anxious thoughts that I was confronted with on a daily basis throughout the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. We learn about life in Zone Eight, Charlie's job, her life, her family. We learn that her grandfather was killed and that her husband disappears every Thursday night, presumably to meet with the person who has written him love notes that Charlie happens across one day. Through her grandfather's letters to a man called Peter, we learn about Charlie's father and her other grandfather. We are given insight into how New York slowly became this authoritarian and dystopian state, with contamination and relocation centres that are too reminiscent of the WWII death camps.
Book III is bleak, with the most upsetting ending despite moments of hope and light throughout. I also enjoyed the reference to Book I, despite it being unclear whether the two books are even set in the same alternate USA. Although it was the strongest of the three books and could have easily been a standalone novel, it took me the longest to get through because of how reminiscent it was of our ongoing pandemic. Yanagihara uses people's fears of illness and death to reflect on some of the atrocities humans are guilty of committing, such as leaving friends out to die in the street alone or informing on neighbours and friends. The ending, just like Book I, leaves you clutching your hair, heart, and anything else really, as you hope for Charlie's safety and freedom.
Just as with the previous two books, Yanagihara's writing of the characters not only made it hard not to grow fond of them but made them very lifelike too. It felt as though I was reading about real people and their real lives, despite the fact that the book was set nearly 70 years in our future.
Just as the characters' names and Washington Square are a constant in all three books, there are common themes throughout too, such as loneliness, unrequited love, status, power and the strained relationship between (grand)fathers and sons. Each book also provides us with food for thought on different aspects of society, something I've been told is quintessentially Yanagihara. It was, for me, a great introduction to Yanagihara's writing and a brilliantly written book. I would have given this a glowing 5 stars had it not been for Part II of Book II.
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I can't stop thinking about the last section and Little Cat.
Like countless readers, I finished Hanya Yanagihara’s previous novel, the phenomenon that became “A Little Life” with a heavy flow of tears streaking my face. Upon rereading it, along with her first work “The People in the Trees” I’ve since fallen in love with Yanagihara’s prose. There’s something about the way she writes a sentence that just leaves me completely captivated. Because of this, I was beyond hyped up for her newest release “To Paradise” purchasing it on release day.
I had been warned by professional publications and BookTubers alike that this was not at all like “A Little Life” so while I wasn’t expecting a thematic sequel or anything similarly tragic (could the tragedy of her 2015 novel be topped? I’m afraid if I ask, Yanagihara will see it as a test and completely destroy my soul. As you’ve probably realized if you’ve made it far enough down the Goodreads page to see this review, “To Paradise” is divided into three sections, each serving as their own incomplete novel (or in the first two cases, novellas). While there are some connective threads like character names, settings, and motifs, each section, or book as they’re labeled in the novel, serve as their own incomplete story, yet I didn’t find any grand insight that interwove the three together.
The first book, Washington Square, follows a reimagined post Civil War North America where, while racism and classism still run rampant, same sex relationships are nothing at which society takes a second glance. This was probably my favorite section of the novel. The reimagined 1893 setting certainly gave off strong Henry James vibes (not surprising, given the section’s title) but with an exciting, queer element to it. If this were a stand alone novella, I would have confidently given it a solid 4 stars.
After initially hearing about the concept behind “To Paradise” I assumed that Book 2, Lipo-Wao-Nahele, set in New York City amidst the AIDS crisis of 1993, would be the most captivating. After all, Yanagihara has proven she can write sad gays like no one else. Imagine my surprise when I found this roughly 200 page section to be the biggest slog of the novel. Set amid a party of the elite, it followed a younger protagonist inside his much older and wealthier lover’s world as his lover deals with the impending deaths around him. While the prose was still lovely, the story itself was surprisingly slow and disengaging. The second half of Book 2 comes in the form of a letter from our protagonist’s father in Hawaii. It deals with colonialism, deforestation, the loss of one’s significance, and other seemingly interesting themes, but in a way I didn’t find particularly engaging. If Lipo-Wao-Nahele was its own standalone novella, I would give it a tepid 1.5 stars.
Book 3 of “To Paradise,” titled Zone Eight, takes up roughly half the novel’s 700 page length. Set in an imagined 2093, this section follows a female protagonist living in a peculiar, almost totalitarian world ravaged by plagues and pandemics. The section alternates between 2093 and decades-old letters from our protagonist’s grandfather, exploring the slow but steady increase of near-fascism as the world struggles to regain some sense of normalcy and control. Reading this on the verge of Year Three of this current pandemic, of course, made the parallels stand out and the grim reality of the situation seem much more feasible than it would have before we entered March of 2020. This section definitely qualifies as soft science fiction, as Yanagihara thrust the readers into the end of the 21st century and expects context clues to fill in the plethora of blanks. While this is preferable to block-of-text-info-dumping, I felt some middle ground could have been met, where the world could be established more clearly and definitely. I suspect this issue wouldn’t reappear if I were to reread this novel in a few years but, to the honest, I don’t see a reread of “To Paradise” in my near future. In summation, if this section served as a standalone novel, I would give it a solid three out of five stars.
While Yanagihara’s sentence structure and verbiage is, as always, lovely and a pleasure to read on its own, the overarching story-- if you could really call it that-- felt lacking to say the least. Rather than a traditional narrative, each of these three “books” are self contained, and while character names repeat throughout, they don’t appear to be any correlation. I’ve read interviews with Yanagihara discussing the deployment of this technique. She said, in essence, it was her way of beginning a conversation about the conventions of naming and how society uses names to restructure the present and the future, but it really didn’t work at all for me. Rather, it added an extra level of confusion.
If there’s a single theme that rings throughout all three elements of “To Paradise” I would say it’s passivity. Each section, and each narrator within the section, is dealing with the idea of different possibilities. At the start, each protagonist is, more or less, in a state of passivity. In Book 1, David is living an uncomplicated but privileged wife with his grandfather in his Washington Square home when the possibility of an intriguing young lover leads him to questioning his arranged engagement with a much older suitor. Should he continue his privileged life as it’s laid out before him, or will he embark on a potentially perilous journey to paradise. Book 2’s version of David is living with his much older lover, who receives a letter from his past, interrupting a final party for his lover’s dying friend amongst the AIDS epidemic. David internally muses about whether his newer, privileged life is a façade when compared to his more bohemian upbringing, including his friend Eden, and if Hawaii would serve him better than his current life affords. Book 3 follows a woman who questions whether the almost-totalitarian government she lives within is the best possible option, or if she should potentially escape.
With a full century between each story, the reader is guided only with brief maps delineating at the alternate history with maps on the inside cover of the book, detailing the differentiations between our real world. Another, perhaps even more detrimental element to my enjoyment of this novel was the lack of resolution for each of the stories. While I don’t necessarily need every plot thread nicely tied up, each of the three stories just seem to end on cliff hangers that don’t get resolved or really alluded to. I understand what she’s trying to do with this, but I didn’t find the tantalization of a potential “paradise” conclusive enough to end each section.
Overall, I have to say I was disappointed by “To Paradise” even going in trying my hardest to tamper expectations so I understood it was not going to be like “A Little Life.” Sure, there is an element of depression in Book 1 that, at brief moments, comes close to the grief explored in her spellbinding second novel and Book 3 features scientists, allowing her to write about the research process within the scientific community, similarly to her debut “The People in the Trees.” However, this novel did not reach the heights of either of Yanagihara’s previous works. Collectively, I’m going to settle on a 3 star rating from rounding up the average of the three different books because of Yanagihara’s beautiful, evocative yet simple writing style.
I had been warned by professional publications and BookTubers alike that this was not at all like “A Little Life” so while I wasn’t expecting a thematic sequel or anything similarly tragic (could the tragedy of her 2015 novel be topped? I’m afraid if I ask, Yanagihara will see it as a test and completely destroy my soul. As you’ve probably realized if you’ve made it far enough down the Goodreads page to see this review, “To Paradise” is divided into three sections, each serving as their own incomplete novel (or in the first two cases, novellas). While there are some connective threads like character names, settings, and motifs, each section, or book as they’re labeled in the novel, serve as their own incomplete story, yet I didn’t find any grand insight that interwove the three together.
The first book, Washington Square, follows a reimagined post Civil War North America where, while racism and classism still run rampant, same sex relationships are nothing at which society takes a second glance. This was probably my favorite section of the novel. The reimagined 1893 setting certainly gave off strong Henry James vibes (not surprising, given the section’s title) but with an exciting, queer element to it. If this were a stand alone novella, I would have confidently given it a solid 4 stars.
After initially hearing about the concept behind “To Paradise” I assumed that Book 2, Lipo-Wao-Nahele, set in New York City amidst the AIDS crisis of 1993, would be the most captivating. After all, Yanagihara has proven she can write sad gays like no one else. Imagine my surprise when I found this roughly 200 page section to be the biggest slog of the novel. Set amid a party of the elite, it followed a younger protagonist inside his much older and wealthier lover’s world as his lover deals with the impending deaths around him. While the prose was still lovely, the story itself was surprisingly slow and disengaging. The second half of Book 2 comes in the form of a letter from our protagonist’s father in Hawaii. It deals with colonialism, deforestation, the loss of one’s significance, and other seemingly interesting themes, but in a way I didn’t find particularly engaging. If Lipo-Wao-Nahele was its own standalone novella, I would give it a tepid 1.5 stars.
Book 3 of “To Paradise,” titled Zone Eight, takes up roughly half the novel’s 700 page length. Set in an imagined 2093, this section follows a female protagonist living in a peculiar, almost totalitarian world ravaged by plagues and pandemics. The section alternates between 2093 and decades-old letters from our protagonist’s grandfather, exploring the slow but steady increase of near-fascism as the world struggles to regain some sense of normalcy and control. Reading this on the verge of Year Three of this current pandemic, of course, made the parallels stand out and the grim reality of the situation seem much more feasible than it would have before we entered March of 2020. This section definitely qualifies as soft science fiction, as Yanagihara thrust the readers into the end of the 21st century and expects context clues to fill in the plethora of blanks. While this is preferable to block-of-text-info-dumping, I felt some middle ground could have been met, where the world could be established more clearly and definitely. I suspect this issue wouldn’t reappear if I were to reread this novel in a few years but, to the honest, I don’t see a reread of “To Paradise” in my near future. In summation, if this section served as a standalone novel, I would give it a solid three out of five stars.
While Yanagihara’s sentence structure and verbiage is, as always, lovely and a pleasure to read on its own, the overarching story-- if you could really call it that-- felt lacking to say the least. Rather than a traditional narrative, each of these three “books” are self contained, and while character names repeat throughout, they don’t appear to be any correlation. I’ve read interviews with Yanagihara discussing the deployment of this technique. She said, in essence, it was her way of beginning a conversation about the conventions of naming and how society uses names to restructure the present and the future, but it really didn’t work at all for me. Rather, it added an extra level of confusion.
If there’s a single theme that rings throughout all three elements of “To Paradise” I would say it’s passivity. Each section, and each narrator within the section, is dealing with the idea of different possibilities. At the start, each protagonist is, more or less, in a state of passivity. In Book 1, David is living an uncomplicated but privileged wife with his grandfather in his Washington Square home when the possibility of an intriguing young lover leads him to questioning his arranged engagement with a much older suitor. Should he continue his privileged life as it’s laid out before him, or will he embark on a potentially perilous journey to paradise. Book 2’s version of David is living with his much older lover, who receives a letter from his past, interrupting a final party for his lover’s dying friend amongst the AIDS epidemic. David internally muses about whether his newer, privileged life is a façade when compared to his more bohemian upbringing, including his friend Eden, and if Hawaii would serve him better than his current life affords. Book 3 follows a woman who questions whether the almost-totalitarian government she lives within is the best possible option, or if she should potentially escape.
With a full century between each story, the reader is guided only with brief maps delineating at the alternate history with maps on the inside cover of the book, detailing the differentiations between our real world. Another, perhaps even more detrimental element to my enjoyment of this novel was the lack of resolution for each of the stories. While I don’t necessarily need every plot thread nicely tied up, each of the three stories just seem to end on cliff hangers that don’t get resolved or really alluded to. I understand what she’s trying to do with this, but I didn’t find the tantalization of a potential “paradise” conclusive enough to end each section.
Overall, I have to say I was disappointed by “To Paradise” even going in trying my hardest to tamper expectations so I understood it was not going to be like “A Little Life.” Sure, there is an element of depression in Book 1 that, at brief moments, comes close to the grief explored in her spellbinding second novel and Book 3 features scientists, allowing her to write about the research process within the scientific community, similarly to her debut “The People in the Trees.” However, this novel did not reach the heights of either of Yanagihara’s previous works. Collectively, I’m going to settle on a 3 star rating from rounding up the average of the three different books because of Yanagihara’s beautiful, evocative yet simple writing style.
Well, I can honestly say that there is nothing like reading a book with a plethora of Davids in it to make me uncomfortable, but that’s a side note.
I spent too much time trying to figure out complicated genealogy and name coincidences (or not, Peters and Charlies?) but not for that, it was a great book.
We see it coming, day by day- from what may sound like a fictional history to a plausible future, I appreciated it a lot, particularly the depiction of the Edward character in Hawaii.
I spent too much time trying to figure out complicated genealogy and name coincidences (or not, Peters and Charlies?) but not for that, it was a great book.
We see it coming, day by day- from what may sound like a fictional history to a plausible future, I appreciated it a lot, particularly the depiction of the Edward character in Hawaii.
This is not A Little Life.
This will not wreck your soul like A Little Life did.
I feel like I needed to say that first because I went into this fully prepared to feel the same emotions that I did when I read that book, and I did not.
I wavered between two and three stars, settling on three because goodreads doesn't know what half stars are. It was almost painful to rate it so low, because my expectations were so high, but here I am.
I loved the writing. Yanagihara is an amazing writer who constructs such vivid images.
I loved the discomfort I felt in reading about situations where it felt so close to what could be our future if things keep going the way they are.
I didn't love the story. Okay, strike that, because I even loved the story..... Except when I didn't.
I am sitting here, having finished it, trying to figure out why the three stories are together. Yes, themes are the same, but what was the point? Character names are the same, but didn't seem related in any way - unless I completely missed something, which is possible. I just didn't get why it was set up the way it was, and am very frustrated over it. I was given snippets of three stories with no real conclusions to them. The third one had more meat to it than the other two, but was still unsatisfying.
The unsatisfactory feeling is what made me rate it the way I did. I'll still read her work, I'll still get excited when I see a new novel is coming, but this is not one I'd easily recommend to others.
This will not wreck your soul like A Little Life did.
I feel like I needed to say that first because I went into this fully prepared to feel the same emotions that I did when I read that book, and I did not.
I wavered between two and three stars, settling on three because goodreads doesn't know what half stars are. It was almost painful to rate it so low, because my expectations were so high, but here I am.
I loved the writing. Yanagihara is an amazing writer who constructs such vivid images.
I loved the discomfort I felt in reading about situations where it felt so close to what could be our future if things keep going the way they are.
I didn't love the story. Okay, strike that, because I even loved the story..... Except when I didn't.
I am sitting here, having finished it, trying to figure out why the three stories are together. Yes, themes are the same, but what was the point? Character names are the same, but didn't seem related in any way - unless I completely missed something, which is possible. I just didn't get why it was set up the way it was, and am very frustrated over it. I was given snippets of three stories with no real conclusions to them. The third one had more meat to it than the other two, but was still unsatisfying.
The unsatisfactory feeling is what made me rate it the way I did. I'll still read her work, I'll still get excited when I see a new novel is coming, but this is not one I'd easily recommend to others.
challenging
mysterious
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I wanted to know what happened after the end of part one, and I wanted to know exactly how the characters in all three parts fitted together. Should I have been able to figure it out??
dark
emotional
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Ok, so, this book took FOREVER to read. And at times I couldn't figure out if I should keep going. But I'm glad I finished it--for me it's the echoes of one story in the next, the common themes seen from so many different angles.
Just, you know, use less words to work your magic.
Just, you know, use less words to work your magic.