Scan barcode
amyaad's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
daja57's review against another edition
2.0
This is a big book divided into three parts, of which the second and third are further subdivided.
The first book seems to be a not particularly original reconsideration of the tension between love and duty. Set in 1894, in an alternative history of New York, centre of a breakaway republic in which gay marriage is the rule rather than the exception, gently, drifting David Bingham, a scion of a powerful banking family, must choose between an arranged marriage with an older man and a love affair with a penniless music teacher who might well be intending to rip him off. Spoiler alert: there is no resolution, the reader will never find out what happens in the end.
The second book, set in 1994, tells the story of another David Bingham, the kept lover of powerful lawyer Charles Griffith. David would have been heir to the throne of Hawaii if history had been different and the second half of this book is a long letter (written, in secret, by a man who is apparently blind and almost too weak to leave his bed) from his father explaining how he, the dad, was persuaded by another Edward to leave his home and live in the wilderness. Once again, we never find out what happens to the principal characters.
The third book, comprising the second 50% of the novel, alternates between letters written by Charles, a scientist living in 2043 and later, as he describes having to make difficult choices, restricting personal freedoms in a society swept by repeated pandemics, and his granddaughter Charlie, living in a totalitarian regime in New York of the 2090s, mentally and physically scarred by disease, offered an opportunity to escape (but once again we will never learn if she succeeds).
Besides the obvious themes of homosexuality and the response of society to pandemics, each of these three stories has a weak and gentle character, cared for by a more powerful man, forced to decide between being safe and looked after, and risking everything for freedom.
This is a long novel and I repeatedly questioned whether it was worth the effort of reading. The three stories are linked by devices such as the repeated names and the Washington Square location, and by the themes. But I found this somewhat artificial and irritating, and the lack of resolution of any story irritated me even more. There were also moments of high artificiality, such as the PI report in the first book and the father's letter in the second. There were moments when dinner-table discussions sounded like dissertations, and when it was implicitly assumed that modern-day mores would survive into the future. Time and again my ability to suspend my disbelief, surely important in a novel rooted in alternative history and dystopian scifi, was challenged. I got the feeling the Yanagahira was playing with form rather than concentrating on writing a novel that might appeal to the reader.
Nevertheless, there are brilliant characters, drawn so that the reader really believes in them, and the tensions between what will keep them safe and what might offer them fulfilment are carefully explored and genuinely involve the reader in the dilemmas faced by the characters: should David in book one believe Edward (no!), should Charlie in book three believe David (yes) and attempt to flee (not sure). etc? Book Two was the weakest in this respect: more and more I cared less and less.
On the other hand, it sometimes felt that, as with her previous novel A Little Life, Yanagihara's character are drawn from a tiny subsection of humanity. Although the principals (David, David and Charlie) are gentle, weak, powerless characters, they are all privileged being born into either rich or royal or powerful families. And their milieu is equally drawn from the higher echelons of society: rich and powerful and cultured. Almost everyone is handsome. Their challenges are the challenges of the lucky. Does Yanagihara not know any ordinary folk?
There are moments of perfect description and other moments when Yanagihara can succinctly nail aspects of the human condition. But fundamentally I was alienated by the formal tricks, by the first world problems, by the lack of resolution and by the sheer bulk of the book.
The first book seems to be a not particularly original reconsideration of the tension between love and duty. Set in 1894, in an alternative history of New York, centre of a breakaway republic in which gay marriage is the rule rather than the exception, gently, drifting David Bingham, a scion of a powerful banking family, must choose between an arranged marriage with an older man and a love affair with a penniless music teacher who might well be intending to rip him off. Spoiler alert: there is no resolution, the reader will never find out what happens in the end.
The second book, set in 1994, tells the story of another David Bingham, the kept lover of powerful lawyer Charles Griffith. David would have been heir to the throne of Hawaii if history had been different and the second half of this book is a long letter (written, in secret, by a man who is apparently blind and almost too weak to leave his bed) from his father explaining how he, the dad, was persuaded by another Edward to leave his home and live in the wilderness. Once again, we never find out what happens to the principal characters.
The third book, comprising the second 50% of the novel, alternates between letters written by Charles, a scientist living in 2043 and later, as he describes having to make difficult choices, restricting personal freedoms in a society swept by repeated pandemics, and his granddaughter Charlie, living in a totalitarian regime in New York of the 2090s, mentally and physically scarred by disease, offered an opportunity to escape (but once again we will never learn if she succeeds).
Besides the obvious themes of homosexuality and the response of society to pandemics, each of these three stories has a weak and gentle character, cared for by a more powerful man, forced to decide between being safe and looked after, and risking everything for freedom.
This is a long novel and I repeatedly questioned whether it was worth the effort of reading. The three stories are linked by devices such as the repeated names and the Washington Square location, and by the themes. But I found this somewhat artificial and irritating, and the lack of resolution of any story irritated me even more. There were also moments of high artificiality, such as the PI report in the first book and the father's letter in the second. There were moments when dinner-table discussions sounded like dissertations, and when it was implicitly assumed that modern-day mores would survive into the future. Time and again my ability to suspend my disbelief, surely important in a novel rooted in alternative history and dystopian scifi, was challenged. I got the feeling the Yanagahira was playing with form rather than concentrating on writing a novel that might appeal to the reader.
Nevertheless, there are brilliant characters, drawn so that the reader really believes in them, and the tensions between what will keep them safe and what might offer them fulfilment are carefully explored and genuinely involve the reader in the dilemmas faced by the characters: should David in book one believe Edward (no!), should Charlie in book three believe David (yes) and attempt to flee (not sure). etc? Book Two was the weakest in this respect: more and more I cared less and less.
On the other hand, it sometimes felt that, as with her previous novel A Little Life, Yanagihara's character are drawn from a tiny subsection of humanity. Although the principals (David, David and Charlie) are gentle, weak, powerless characters, they are all privileged being born into either rich or royal or powerful families. And their milieu is equally drawn from the higher echelons of society: rich and powerful and cultured. Almost everyone is handsome. Their challenges are the challenges of the lucky. Does Yanagihara not know any ordinary folk?
There are moments of perfect description and other moments when Yanagihara can succinctly nail aspects of the human condition. But fundamentally I was alienated by the formal tricks, by the first world problems, by the lack of resolution and by the sheer bulk of the book.
iemegosh's review against another edition
3.5
so the first two stories… BORING but story three had me hooked! and like literally crying! i wish i had just read that
threegoodrats's review against another edition
4.0
I need to spend more time thinking about this one, and now that I’ve finished I’m going to read more of the reviews. This book was divided into 3 parts that all take place 100 years apart and have different characters but the characters all have the same names, and there are some common themes. It was like reading 3 different books, or more really because the 2nd part felt like 2 different books. It was almost like the author started several versions of a book and then decided to just use it all. The third part was half of the book, 350 pages, and just could have been it’s own book. I’m trying to figure out why those first two parts were needed. I liked them - well, I’m a bit undecided about part 2, but I really liked part 1 - I’m just not sure how they fit with the final part. I also didn’t realize before reading that there would be pandemics involved, so that was a thing.
krussek's review against another edition
4.0
I have a lot of complicated feelings about Yanagihara as a writer, and went into this with the expectations that it would be a mediocre follow up to A Little Life. Maybe play directly into people’s criticisms of her (why does this woman write specifically about gay men? Why does all of her writing if not focus on, then touch on, CSA?).
The first section of the book is pretty middling, and didn’t really grab me. While I love the idea of an alternate early America, it was fairly bland until the very end of the section (with the reveal of David’s serious attachment issues, and the cliffhanger). Could’ve used some more worldbuilding, imo. I do think it gets undue criticism for realistic portrayals of wealthy “progressive” Anglo attitudes towards race circa 1890s, though. (Surprise! Northern abolitionists were colonizers and racists too! Even those with weird utopian politics!) The tension here, is I think, intentional- especially with the anti colonial themes of the second section. As other folks have said, too, Yanagihara is herself a woman of color. People simply hate to be made uncomfortable, or be confronted with the complications of depicting a realistic (albeit alternative) past. I currently work in early American history, and as such have little patience for this outside valid criticisms of centering historical trauma in narrative to win sympathy with white audiences. That’s pretty clearly not what’s going on here, but the story and presentation could’ve been a lot stronger.
Things pick up in the second half of part two, with the father’s perspective; and book three completely blew me out of the water. It is, I dare say, what makes the rest of the book work. It’s extremely prescient, and Charlie’s narration gorgeously conveys her emotions through the lens of her cognitive differences. By god, the way that ended made me so mad even though I knew it was going to finish that way.
The first section of the book is pretty middling, and didn’t really grab me. While I love the idea of an alternate early America, it was fairly bland until the very end of the section (with the reveal of David’s serious attachment issues, and the cliffhanger). Could’ve used some more worldbuilding, imo. I do think it gets undue criticism for realistic portrayals of wealthy “progressive” Anglo attitudes towards race circa 1890s, though. (Surprise! Northern abolitionists were colonizers and racists too! Even those with weird utopian politics!) The tension here, is I think, intentional- especially with the anti colonial themes of the second section. As other folks have said, too, Yanagihara is herself a woman of color. People simply hate to be made uncomfortable, or be confronted with the complications of depicting a realistic (albeit alternative) past. I currently work in early American history, and as such have little patience for this outside valid criticisms of centering historical trauma in narrative to win sympathy with white audiences. That’s pretty clearly not what’s going on here, but the story and presentation could’ve been a lot stronger.
Things pick up in the second half of part two, with the father’s perspective; and book three completely blew me out of the water. It is, I dare say, what makes the rest of the book work. It’s extremely prescient, and Charlie’s narration gorgeously conveys her emotions through the lens of her cognitive differences. By god, the way that ended made me so mad even though I knew it was going to finish that way.
oxnard_montalvo's review against another edition
(Feb 1st and the predicted date I get this from the library is end of july....)
Well, I got this end of March!
Not what I would call a fun read. More luxuriating in misery. I have very tangled feelings regarding Yanigihara as a writer; she can craft some fine sentences; she is spectacular when it comes to describing very precise, specific feelings... but. But. But. But. Maybe my palate has changed too much to really enjoy the kind of stories that she writes. I don't have the stomach of the kind of dystopian world that she created here and unlike a Little Life, I struggled to truly care about the characters the way I did in that previous book.
Well, I got this end of March!
Not what I would call a fun read. More luxuriating in misery. I have very tangled feelings regarding Yanigihara as a writer; she can craft some fine sentences; she is spectacular when it comes to describing very precise, specific feelings... but. But. But. But. Maybe my palate has changed too much to really enjoy the kind of stories that she writes. I don't have the stomach of the kind of dystopian world that she created here and unlike a Little Life, I struggled to truly care about the characters the way I did in that previous book.
brisingr's review against another edition
5.0
One of my most anticipated releases of 2022 - and an author whose books I will always look forward to with huge interest and love, for the rest of my 'career' as a reader, and hers as an author.
When asked if she's working on something new, at the book signing I attended, Hanya Yanagihara said that she is not writing anything until she has something to say. For fans of her work - and especially the 'A Little Life' obsessed (a group in which I consider myself to fully belong), I think this particular book will prove to be utterly different than whatever expectations we might have created and build up in our minds. But oh, if she hasn't had something to say!
'To Paradise' is more three separate stories, set in different centuries, in different alternate realities of our own world, history and possible futures, which faces the old, golden idea of the 'American dream', this whole place as a promised land that can satisfy anyone daring enough to seek it and challenge it. As an immigrant myself, I knew even before I read it that it will hurt.
And it did. In ways that her previous book didn't, and also in different ways. I haven't cried once. I had felt sullen despair, but also loved (and maybe resented) the open, hopeful endings.
But this has been one of the most interesting reading experiences I've had: utterly boring in contents, so much of it internal working rather than outright action. It's a book made-up by examples and writing that has formed all great novels before it (stream of consciousness, epistolary, etc.) and it makes a chunky as hell, potentially difficult to read novel. But I have not been more entertained in my life: by all these utterly flawed and interesting characters, and their worlds - peculiar and pained. And if there's one thing that Hanya Yanagihara can do, that is TO WRITE. I enjoyed the writing in this so much, and I found myself absolutely devouring this book (despite what the dates on this review says, it was in fact just 3 days that I needed to read and finish this book).
'To Paradise' is a challenge: let's imagine the world as you wished it could have been. Is it better? Let's imagine the world as it can be, why is it so hellish - when we keep telling ourselves we know better? Let's throw away our prejudices and create a paradise; why do people want to leave it?
I'm so glad to have read this and experience this and my heart is always in-between Hanya Yanagihara's fingers.
When asked if she's working on something new, at the book signing I attended, Hanya Yanagihara said that she is not writing anything until she has something to say. For fans of her work - and especially the 'A Little Life' obsessed (a group in which I consider myself to fully belong), I think this particular book will prove to be utterly different than whatever expectations we might have created and build up in our minds. But oh, if she hasn't had something to say!
'To Paradise' is more three separate stories, set in different centuries, in different alternate realities of our own world, history and possible futures, which faces the old, golden idea of the 'American dream', this whole place as a promised land that can satisfy anyone daring enough to seek it and challenge it. As an immigrant myself, I knew even before I read it that it will hurt.
And it did. In ways that her previous book didn't, and also in different ways. I haven't cried once. I had felt sullen despair, but also loved (and maybe resented) the open, hopeful endings.
But this has been one of the most interesting reading experiences I've had: utterly boring in contents, so much of it internal working rather than outright action. It's a book made-up by examples and writing that has formed all great novels before it (stream of consciousness, epistolary, etc.) and it makes a chunky as hell, potentially difficult to read novel. But I have not been more entertained in my life: by all these utterly flawed and interesting characters, and their worlds - peculiar and pained. And if there's one thing that Hanya Yanagihara can do, that is TO WRITE. I enjoyed the writing in this so much, and I found myself absolutely devouring this book (despite what the dates on this review says, it was in fact just 3 days that I needed to read and finish this book).
'To Paradise' is a challenge: let's imagine the world as you wished it could have been. Is it better? Let's imagine the world as it can be, why is it so hellish - when we keep telling ourselves we know better? Let's throw away our prejudices and create a paradise; why do people want to leave it?
I'm so glad to have read this and experience this and my heart is always in-between Hanya Yanagihara's fingers.
prettypious's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed the story. I liked book II best and reread that twice. It was long but it didn’t feel long while I was reading it I think cause if’s really three short stories across multiple timelines collectively making the book which I did like. One thing that annoyed me was that the characters all had the same name with no connection. Anyways I recommend anyone interested in reading alt reality or dystopian lit and/or stories that center queer men then I highly recommend
anjalisudarsan's review against another edition
5.0
Took me a while to read and understand this brilliant novel. The author definitely has put a lot of thought into the way she writes, it felt so beautiful, the pace was perfect, and it was almost poetic.
The fact that all three books ended with an open ending did not irk me, probably because I’d spent so much time thinking about the dystopian worlds and the characters. I did think it was odd that the names (Edward, Charles, Nathaniel) were repeated in each books as distinct characters, however it sort of went with the flow for me. I probably enjoyed the first story the most, the third one, set in the future, made me a bit tense. Probably since it hit too close to home with pandemics and state control
The fact that all three books ended with an open ending did not irk me, probably because I’d spent so much time thinking about the dystopian worlds and the characters. I did think it was odd that the names (Edward, Charles, Nathaniel) were repeated in each books as distinct characters, however it sort of went with the flow for me. I probably enjoyed the first story the most, the third one, set in the future, made me a bit tense. Probably since it hit too close to home with pandemics and state control
soph_od's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
Having adored A Little Life, I was so excited to get into To Paradise.
However, while enjoyable, I cannot help being a tad disappointed by it.
The joy and mastery in Yanagihara's writing is her ability to use such intricate detail to flesh out characters and character growth to a stage where they feel almost alive - however, the three story structure of To Paradise lost this a little. Perhaps it would have been more powerful if the characters across stories were interconnected by more than just their names and vague themes.
A struggle to become absorbed in, and dragged at times, but there were still moments of writing that were spellbinding and captivating.
However, while enjoyable, I cannot help being a tad disappointed by it.
The joy and mastery in Yanagihara's writing is her ability to use such intricate detail to flesh out characters and character growth to a stage where they feel almost alive - however, the three story structure of To Paradise lost this a little. Perhaps it would have been more powerful if the characters across stories were interconnected by more than just their names and vague themes.
A struggle to become absorbed in, and dragged at times, but there were still moments of writing that were spellbinding and captivating.