Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
UGH. While there were many aspects about this book (books?) that I enjoyed, and even loved, I detest unresolved endings. I want an ending that feels “finished.” Each time a book concluded, I was desperate for just one more page, one more chapter.
In my mind, nothing could ever compare to “A Little Life.” While not as depressing as Hanya Yanagihara’s bestseller, “To Paradise” was gut-wrenching in an entirely different way.
The use of the same character names throughout really irritated me at first, but by the end, I grew to enjoy it. There were definitely points where the overlapping names and themes confused me a bit, but I almost liked to think there was some connection between the characters across hundreds of years.
Book One: ⭐️⭐️⭐️
In my mind, nothing could ever compare to “A Little Life.” While not as depressing as Hanya Yanagihara’s bestseller, “To Paradise” was gut-wrenching in an entirely different way.
The use of the same character names throughout really irritated me at first, but by the end, I grew to enjoy it. There were definitely points where the overlapping names and themes confused me a bit, but I almost liked to think there was some connection between the characters across hundreds of years.
Book One: ⭐️⭐️⭐️
adventurous
dark
emotional
hopeful
tense
slow-paced
What he wouldn't know until he was much older was that no one was ever free, that to know someone and to love them was to assume the task of remembering them, even if that person was still living.This novel is more of a loosely connected three-parter. The characters, David and Charles, Eden, Wesley etc., are all re-curring persona's throughout each part, with David and Charles at the centre of it.
First Part: set in an alternate version of 19th century America, wherein New York is a free state, a country of its own, and David Bingham is a descendant of royalty, set to inherit his grandfather's estate in Washington Square. David is set to marry the widower Charles, yet falls for another.
> Loved the mood of it, the alternative history vibe and just to have a same-sex relationship set during that time period. David's struggle with ownership and love, the ambivalence between adventure and security is very striking.
Second Part: at the height of the AIDS epidemic, with David and Charles entangled with one another, Charles sick, yet acting as a security blanket for David, who is once more caught between the longing for adventure and the security of a stable relationship.
> This one is split in two, with David as a Hawaii'an descendant, out on his own in New York, trying to reconfigure his life as a gay man outside of his family. The second part is from the POV of David's bed-ridden father, who thinks back on his life, and the co-dependant relationships that have lead to his parenting mistakes. This part was definitely more depressing, but probably also my favourite.
Third Part: presents the latter half of the 21st century, with one pandemic following the other, and society gradually turning into a dystopia.
> This time it is Charlie, and her grandfather Charles. Very drawn out. Super depressing. Chapters alternate between Charlie's POV and correspondance between Charles and his friend Peter across multiple years, practically chronicalling the collapse of American society. Def bogged the book down in my opinion but was well-crafted, in terms of dystopian writing.
If you liked A Little Life you might enjoy this, though it is tonally very different (and for sure not even 5% as torture porn heavy - thank god).
This book was MASSIVE. It took me months to finish. I enjoyed that it was essentially three books in one however I wish it was clearer in how the three stories “came together”. And I was disappointed that the book ended without a clear way forward, after having made it through such a long book and enjoyed most of it, the ending left a lot to be desired.
dark
emotional
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This was a tome. In parts I felt like it would never end, however I could not put this book down.
I just want to chat to someone about it.
I just want to chat to someone about it.
Ah, this was a really tough book to get through. I’m not unfamiliar with Yanagihara’s prose-heavy writing style - but TP just felt much longer than usual, and lacked the sense of immersion I usually feel when reading her works. This sets the tone for my review to be a bit jaded, but I’ll do my best to break down my thoughts on this lengthy novel.
Let’s get some better stuff out of the way first. Having the character names be motifs throughout the three distinct stories is a very cool idea, and something I’ve never seen before in anything I’ve read. From my understanding, each name represented some element of human nature - Edward for danger and uncertainty, Charles for safety and comfort, etc. - and it was fascinating to see the way these played out in the different stories. The way the main character by the third book had become a ‘Charles’ (Charlie) herself, despite the other 2 parts having displayed a sense of discomfort with their versions of Charles-named characters, was a very interesting development, and provided a new perspective into the characterisations present across the entire novel.
The formatting of the sections was also quite unique, with some written in the form of letters, others in regular prose, and so forth. The structural changes played well into the novel’s exploration of familial relationships and generational difference as well, and overall broke up some of the fatigue that comes with tackling works of this length. But that’s just about where my positive thoughts on the novel cease.
The issues I have with Yanagihara’s writing extend beyond just this book. First and foremost, TP centres around the gay male experience, but also touches on aspects like Hawaiian sovereignty, racism, pandemics and refugee camps. For a novel covering such a great amount of content, I wish more time had been spent exploring the different societal constructs she herself had introduced for each time period, rather than solely focusing on the individual dreariness of her character’s lives. I understand that her style is character-driven, but there is so much more nuance that can come from diving into the societies she had written, and it just falls flat when this doesn’t happen. This is something I picked up on while reading The People in the Trees as well, so it’s disappointing to see such heavy issues get written off once again.
However, most importantly, the biggest criticism I have of TP is Yanagihara’s position to write first-hand and in great lengths about a queer identity that she herself has never experienced. If you read her interviews, she goes above and beyond to defend her right to write about gay males, going as far as saying “it’s easier, freer, and safer to write about your own feelings as an outsider when cloaked in the identity of a different kind of outsider”. As someone who has read all of her books now, I believe I’m posed to question the extent to which her writing comes from an informed perspective, and also to ask whether or not she has considered the impact that her constant push of queer suffering has on her large audience - especially since she seems to preach so heavily her fascination with being an outsider voice for the community. I have also seen discussions around her representations of disability being subject to the same criticism, and it really sucks that she seems to believe ideas of human misery can only arise from specific types of characters. This is a binary that doesn’t have a right or wrong answer, but as a longtime reader of her works, her writing no longer sits right with me, and this book only served to reiterate that.
Now why, if I am such a hater, did I force myself to push through and finish this book despite it taking me months and monumental effort? And my honest answer to this is that I don’t really know. I guess I just find something fascinating in dissecting the themes of her writing, especially since I largely disagree with her conclusions. For now, I believe it may be best if I take a step back from her writing for a while :,(
- 2.5/5 stars.
Let’s get some better stuff out of the way first. Having the character names be motifs throughout the three distinct stories is a very cool idea, and something I’ve never seen before in anything I’ve read. From my understanding, each name represented some element of human nature - Edward for danger and uncertainty, Charles for safety and comfort, etc. - and it was fascinating to see the way these played out in the different stories. The way the main character by the third book had become a ‘Charles’ (Charlie) herself, despite the other 2 parts having displayed a sense of discomfort with their versions of Charles-named characters, was a very interesting development, and provided a new perspective into the characterisations present across the entire novel.
The formatting of the sections was also quite unique, with some written in the form of letters, others in regular prose, and so forth. The structural changes played well into the novel’s exploration of familial relationships and generational difference as well, and overall broke up some of the fatigue that comes with tackling works of this length. But that’s just about where my positive thoughts on the novel cease.
The issues I have with Yanagihara’s writing extend beyond just this book. First and foremost, TP centres around the gay male experience, but also touches on aspects like Hawaiian sovereignty, racism, pandemics and refugee camps. For a novel covering such a great amount of content, I wish more time had been spent exploring the different societal constructs she herself had introduced for each time period, rather than solely focusing on the individual dreariness of her character’s lives. I understand that her style is character-driven, but there is so much more nuance that can come from diving into the societies she had written, and it just falls flat when this doesn’t happen. This is something I picked up on while reading The People in the Trees as well, so it’s disappointing to see such heavy issues get written off once again.
However, most importantly, the biggest criticism I have of TP is Yanagihara’s position to write first-hand and in great lengths about a queer identity that she herself has never experienced. If you read her interviews, she goes above and beyond to defend her right to write about gay males, going as far as saying “it’s easier, freer, and safer to write about your own feelings as an outsider when cloaked in the identity of a different kind of outsider”. As someone who has read all of her books now, I believe I’m posed to question the extent to which her writing comes from an informed perspective, and also to ask whether or not she has considered the impact that her constant push of queer suffering has on her large audience - especially since she seems to preach so heavily her fascination with being an outsider voice for the community. I have also seen discussions around her representations of disability being subject to the same criticism, and it really sucks that she seems to believe ideas of human misery can only arise from specific types of characters. This is a binary that doesn’t have a right or wrong answer, but as a longtime reader of her works, her writing no longer sits right with me, and this book only served to reiterate that.
Now why, if I am such a hater, did I force myself to push through and finish this book despite it taking me months and monumental effort? And my honest answer to this is that I don’t really know. I guess I just find something fascinating in dissecting the themes of her writing, especially since I largely disagree with her conclusions. For now, I believe it may be best if I take a step back from her writing for a while :,(
- 2.5/5 stars.
challenging
dark
emotional
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Loved the first section - like an alternate reality Edith Wharton. Enjoyed the first half of part two, but lost interest in the Hawai’i section. Third book was interested and I did feel invested in Charlie’s escape, but it was too slow and bogged down with pandemic details.