★★★★☆
The story as a whole intertwines the lives of characters as they live entirely different lives spanning three different centuries, past present and future. It gives an insight into how sexuality, race, home and hope present themselves in these various contextual differences.
I went into this novel blind, not knowing anything about the split stories or whether or not they were interconnected. Through this I found myself piecing everything together as I read, which I found rewarding, even if at times it was confusing.
At its heart it is about humanity. Yanagihara has proven in her previous works to understand human emotion, action and relationships more deeply and with greater nuance than most authors I have read. Though sometimes this nuance may cross a line, where it becomes less of an understanding of sides of the story and more of an empathy for people who don’t deserve it.
Overall, it is a self reflective novel, a story within a story, with one main theme - the desperation of each character to escape and find paradise. Each book ends ambiguously, though having read A Little Life I don’t doubt that my own interpretation of these endings (which is that they end badly) isn’t far from the truth. But as Charlie expresses in the end of book III, regardless of if it is a good end or bad end, it is an end, and that is both tragic and cathartic either way.
Book I - 1893
Set in 1893, this opening story captures an entangled love triangle between David, Charles and Edward. Beautifully written, the reader never feels out of place in such a far off time period, but it is still well formed and certain in its world building.
One of the greatest aspects of To Paradise, as is seen in Yanagihara’s previous work, A Little Life, is the casual inclusion of homosexual relationships, normalising gay stories without the book being inherently about homosexuality. Though the themes of sexuality are important to the book's narrative as a whole - which captures the political landscape of a country, in particular America, through three different centuries, including sexuality - the writing of the relationships is never conscious that this is anything but a human story. It helps that Book I is set in an alternative version of America’s past, in which marriage equality is legal (in the Free States) even in 1893.
Yanagihara additionally is adept at creating characters that the reader can become attached to, fleshing them out enough that even something as simple as moving across the country can feel like a high stakes situation, given the right context. I also found myself uncertain, as David is, whether Edward truly does love him or if it was just a con to take his money. The ambiguous ending doesn’t help this matter, but despite my optimistic intention, I cannot help but fear David's life got worse, moving to California with Edward.
Book II - 1993
Book II delves far more into identity than the other two - following David, also known as Kawika, a young prince from Hawai’i, whose kingdom was lost to him as a child, and who found himself face to face with racism when moving over to the states for college. Set in 1993, 100 years on from Book I, Kawika (David) too ends up with Edward, who moves them far away from their family.
The themes of identity resonated deeply with me, and I found myself empathetic with Edward (Paiea), who is only partly Hawaiian, and feels welcome neither in the mainland nor in Hawai’i. This leads him to find more importance in tradition and honouring his Hawaiian side than Kawika, who is fully Hawaiian and rooted into the history of the country through royal blood. This again, highlights Yanagihara’s understanding of human nature, of our desperation to be part of something greater, and how in chasing that we can fall down unfortunate paths.
This is emphasised through the description of Lipo-who-nahele - Kawika (David)'s only remaining land left from when his family ruled over the kingdom of Hawai’i. When David and Edward choose to move into it, as Edward was desperate to feel a part of his heritage, they become increasingly isolated. The way Yanagihara describes the island creates such a visceral image of a barren and isolated land,I began to feel claustrophobic just reading it, and again, in my connection to the character, felt myself screaming at David to just go home, to stay with his son.
Past criticism of Yanagihara's work is that there seems to be some self indulgence in the pain she continuously puts her characters through, and this is definitely resonant within Book II, in which we read as David becomes increasingly miserable and broken, under the thumb of Edward, who is controlling, emotionally manipulative and abusive. Though, in the entirety of To Paradise, there is no comparison, and it comes nowhere close to the pain of A Little Life.
Book III - 2093
Book III takes place in an imagined 2093, in which, after a series of pandemics and illnesses, the United States closes its borders and operates under martial law. Written in two perspectives, one a set of letters addressed to Peter, signed C, the other a first person account of their life. Later, as the reader you piece together that this is Grandfather and granddaughter - speaking decades apart of their life, so different from each other as the world gets more dystopian as the years go on.
One thing I notice, as a reader, is how obviously influenced by the Covid-19 pandemic Book II is. There is no denying it, it is a reflection of what we all went through, repurposed for a future that looks much less unrealistic now. It is unfortunate, and scary, how dystopian fiction has come to read less like an abstract concept, and more as a real and looming threat. This is aided by Yanagihara’s ability to concisely create a world, and the nuance of humanity and the reaction to this kind of world, by different kinds of people. Charles, the scientist who believes in logic, and that sending those who are sick to camps to die, is a good thing, in the big picture. And David, his son, with whom he never got along, who causes devastation when working with rebellion group, The Light, who believe, with good cause, that the government is faking illnesses to keep the public in line.
Though there are real insights in this story, about the world, and good and bad ways we as society, governed and ungoverned, deal with the worst things that can happen.
However, there are times in which I feel the authors own voice and political alignment may come through. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as I do believe there is no such thing as apolitical art. But some parts of the story do walk the line between commentary and propaganda. Particularly with that of Charlie, and how her reaction to the medicine she received was a lifelong neurological disorder, characterised by a lack of emotional responses, not understanding things and sensory meltdowns. It seems clear that the disorder Charlie deals with is very similar to autism in its traits, and it worries me that this could be some kind of thinly veiled analogy for the anti-vax ideology that vaccines cause autism, a dangerous and disproven theory that creates a greater stigma around autism spectrum disorder and causes undue fear of life saving vaccines.
However, this may just be another part of Yanagihara’s ability to write about real human and 21st century issues in a fictionalised self conscious story while keeping it plausible. This is further proven in how fear in society, whether that be due to pandemics, conflicts or cultural shifts, begets regression and increases bigotry. Compared to Book I, where in a fictionalised history, gay marriage was legal, in this proposed future, it has been overturned in pursuit of repopulation. Given the current political climate, it is very resonant and unfortunate to witness in real life the stories I read in a dystopian fiction.
Overall I rated To Paradise 4 out of 5 stars . It is a portrait of humanity, something Hanya Yanagihara does best. However, I would say there is room for a deeper and more enriched story, if Yanagihara was willing to include more female characters who don’t just exist to further male storylines. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest that no stories in To Paradise pass the bechdel test and though writing mostly about gay male characters and their relationships may necessitate a lack of female characters - it would be good to flesh out those that exist - such as Charlie's mother - who was seemingly very one dimensional. And Charlie, though interesting and fleshed out - lacked any drive other than getting a husband and doing what her grandfather wants her to do.
Comments