Take a photo of a barcode or cover
cameliarose 's review for:
To Paradise
by Hanya Yanagihara
To Paradise is three books in one, with a 100 years gap between them. Each book can be read on its own. There are shared elements: New York (Washington Square), neuro-atypoical characters, gay theme, and the choice between family, security and adventure. Names of the main characters are shared too: David, Edward, Charlies, Peter, etc.. Are they supposed to be incarnations?
Book One is set in an alternative 1893’s New York, which was a part of Free States, an independent country in the East and North East coast of America where homesexual union was legalised and women had voting rights, but not blacks. It reads like historical fiction. The language is gorgeous, and it does have the feel of Henry James and Edith Wharton. The problem is, I am not a fan of Henry James, and it lacks Edith Wharton’s female angle that I adore.
Book Two has two parts. The first part, set in New York as we know of during the 1993 AIDS crisis, is my least liked part–none of the characters interest me. Part 2, set in mid-century Hawaii, is more engaging.
The best is Book Three, set in the fifty years leading to 2093, again in New York but this time a part of a totalitarian dystopian country ravaged by pandemics and the result of wars and global climate disasters. The story is narrated in alternating voices of Charlies, a Hawaii virologist employed by a prestigious New York institute, and Charlie, Charlies’ granddaughter and a survivor of a previous pandemic. I’ve read quite a few dystopian novels, many of which have well-depicted worlds in their different dystopian ways, but little details of how the modern civilization collapsed, or, most importantly, how ordinary people felt during the abysmal transition. This book is different. There is a Chinese saying–cooking frogs in warm water. As a frog, you probably won’t even notice the rising temperature until it’s too late. Different individuals have different tolerance levels. Some might even enjoy the warm bath a bit. Others might think, by fanning the fire, they could escape the fate. There are only four options: to escape, to fight, to adapt, or to die.
Among the many neuro-atypoical, lonely and marginalised young characters, Charlie is my favourite.
My biggest disappointment is the open endings. Why can’t she just let me know what happened to David and Charlie?!
Rating:
Book One: 3.5 star
Book Two: 3 star (Part 1: 2 star; Part 2: 4 star)
Book Three: 4.5 star (the ending…)
Average: 3.7 round up, so, 4 star
Book One is set in an alternative 1893’s New York, which was a part of Free States, an independent country in the East and North East coast of America where homesexual union was legalised and women had voting rights, but not blacks. It reads like historical fiction. The language is gorgeous, and it does have the feel of Henry James and Edith Wharton. The problem is, I am not a fan of Henry James, and it lacks Edith Wharton’s female angle that I adore.
Book Two has two parts. The first part, set in New York as we know of during the 1993 AIDS crisis, is my least liked part–none of the characters interest me. Part 2, set in mid-century Hawaii, is more engaging.
The best is Book Three, set in the fifty years leading to 2093, again in New York but this time a part of a totalitarian dystopian country ravaged by pandemics and the result of wars and global climate disasters. The story is narrated in alternating voices of Charlies, a Hawaii virologist employed by a prestigious New York institute, and Charlie, Charlies’ granddaughter and a survivor of a previous pandemic. I’ve read quite a few dystopian novels, many of which have well-depicted worlds in their different dystopian ways, but little details of how the modern civilization collapsed, or, most importantly, how ordinary people felt during the abysmal transition. This book is different. There is a Chinese saying–cooking frogs in warm water. As a frog, you probably won’t even notice the rising temperature until it’s too late. Different individuals have different tolerance levels. Some might even enjoy the warm bath a bit. Others might think, by fanning the fire, they could escape the fate. There are only four options: to escape, to fight, to adapt, or to die.
Among the many neuro-atypoical, lonely and marginalised young characters, Charlie is my favourite.
My biggest disappointment is the open endings. Why can’t she just let me know what happened to David and Charlie?!
Rating:
Book One: 3.5 star
Book Two: 3 star (Part 1: 2 star; Part 2: 4 star)
Book Three: 4.5 star (the ending…)
Average: 3.7 round up, so, 4 star