I read this book during the Christmas holidays as part of our book club topic, which was "Books that won or were nominated to international prizes during the last ten years". I decided to read Trust as it was a Pulitzer prize co-winner in 2023, shared with Damon Copperhead.
I always have a lot of faith in the Pulitzer Prize, because I always find that the writing of the winners actually is really good - and yes, I am a huge Donna Tartt fan and can't forget her Goldfinch. I only heard good things about this one, therefore I decided to give it a chance.
As you'll see, I loved this book very much. It's one of the best I've read in 2024 and a perfect way to end the year.
In the following stream of words, I'll try to explain what the book gave me, since it's stuck in my memory and heart. I'll do my best to avoid spoilers - some are inevitable though, but I'll try to be on my best behaviour. Keep in mind this is a book to read not for the story but for the structure, but everything will become clear at the end, if you can manage through my stream of consciousness.
First things first: the plot.
The book has actually one plot divided in four parts, which is very interesting because it investigates the same topic from different point of views.
Part 1: Bonds
The first part, Bonds, is in the form of a novel and it resembles a classic narrative from the late 19th/early 20th centuries. The novel is the biography of Benjamin Rask, a man who achieves wealth and success thanks to his ability in financial business. He understands finance and he uses his ability and much envied intuition to become one of the richest men in growing New York City. He soon meets his future wife, Helen, who had a very peculiar life due to her extreme intelligence, developed during her childhood years spent around Europe. Unfortunately she develops both a mental illness and an eczema forcing the couple to seek a cure in Switzerland, where Helen eventually dies.
Part two: My life
As soon as we turn the page and start the second part of the book, though, it's the man behind fictional Benjamin Rask, Andrew Bevel, who takes the lead of the story. He drafts his own autobiography, which often contains notes and tips on how to fill certain moments of the story. He claims his biggest problem is with the portray of his wife, Mildred, and how his own life was depicted from the author of Bonds. In his part of the novel, Bevel reveals his wife was never mentally ill, instead she suffered of an aggressive form of cancer.
Third part: A Memoir, Remembered
The third section is written by Andrew Bevel's ghostwriter, Ida Partenza. She recalls how she got the job and shares her opinions on the rich man. She accepts the job as a young and poor aspiring writer and she becomes increasingly intrigued by Mildred's personality. Her part of the story takes place both in the present - where grown-up Ida finds Mildred's diaries and finally reads it - and in the author's past: a 23-years-old Ida tries to financially support her anarchist father and she ends up meeting Bevel.
Fourth part: Futures
The final part of the book is Mildred's own journal, written when she's already in the sanatorium in Switzerland. There she talks about her memories, her story and her illness. I don't want to spoil much of this part, since Mildred's personality remains a whole mystery until this point, but here we reach the peak of the book.
As you may have guessed, the story's totally different from what the characters want you to believe. I want to share some of my reflections on it - let me know if you felt the same reading the book, or if my insights might entice you to read it.
Characters vs places
One of the aspects I like more in books is when the characters and the places they inhabit are interconnected, and this book surely excels in that.
Andrew Bevel's story is deeply connected to New York and its expansion. His success begins during the last years of 19th Century, when he discovers his love for finance, eventually becoming one of the richest men in the country. As his wealth grows, so do the skyscrapers around him. In the book there are frequent allusions to new constructions and increasingly higher buildings. But what's behind that?
History - and Bevel - claims wealth is made by intelligent and intuitive men who understand how to succeed. It's a rather chauvinistic mentality, isn't it? As Bevel sees his own success as that of a selfmade man, so does the city. There are many moments in which the characters dialogue in a self-centered way, attributing the growth and wealth of USA just to already wealthy, white men.
At the same time we see Ida's setting, which is the streets. Just as Bevel's always depicted inside buildings, she's mostly outside, and even when she's inside, she walks restlessly across rooms. To me, this is a metaphor of women's condition, especially at that time: they always have to move in order to get some result, they have to costantly prove their worth and they have to work so much harder than man. In particular, Ida is also a second generation immigrant and daughter to a socialist, therefore her efforts have to be even greater.
Finally, Mildred's spaces are always narrow and full of things and people, emphasizing her multifaceted personality. Throughout the book we often perceive her as a loner, who feels uneasy in a room full of people. At the same time she's a woman of the arts, passionate about literature, music, art expression, and clearly very intelligent.
But the places she inhabit aren't "hers", they're always tied to other people's wealth: weather during her childhood, after her marriage to Bevel or in the sanatory, where she's always under some nurse's control. I'll leave what happens when she's left alone - that you will discover as you read the book.
The language
One could say this book is an exercise of style and you know what? It kind of is. The first part is written, as mentioned above, as a conventional novel. It reminded me of late 19th/early 20th century's novels, written in third person past tense, with an omniscent narrator, yet always keeping some kind of detachment from the characters' emotions. It's very good and poetic and frankly I was a bit disappointed when I turned the page to discover the first part was over, as I was really enjoying the style.
At the same time, maybe my favourite part was the second one, where we find Bevel's side of the story with some notes and unfinished sentences - I understand why some reader could not love this part, because often when we're reading some engaging part it ends abruptly with some instruction like "add funny anecdote here". It's more sober and we read another perspective that doesn't always align with the first one. I personally found this part amusing because it completely shifts the narration: the main character of the novel is the one who speaks and is eager to tell his truth.
Then there's Ida's part, where she tells her side of the story. After the deep dive into rich Bevel's section, both in the first and second part of the book, the difference is huge. We follow Ida's life, meet her dad and her boyfriend and learn how she ends up being Bevel's ghost writer. Also it's the part where us readers can more easily simpathize with the character, as we're a bit like her: we've read and heard two different sides of the same story and we need to create an idea for ourselves - or do we?
The last and shorter part is the one where finally Mildred speaks. These are her diary's notes, finally available to be read - and read by Ida herself. It's the most cryptic part as the narrative is not always linear. Yet we have a true insight of Mildred's mind - she, who is the true center of the story, the one anyone and everything revolves around. And I loved them.
I can only imagine how difficult it was for Hernan Diaz to change style everytime, in such a beautiful and cohesive way! The novel altogether is like a matryoshka doll: with every new revelation we understand the events better through different perspectives. It was a great exercise in style, but I appreciated a lot and again: I get why this book made it to the Pulitzer.
So, what's the truth?
To the most attentive of readers it's easy to notice how many times some sentences and expressions are recurrent in all the different parts - or just in a couple of them. One of the most intriguing aspects of the narration is that every narrator claims he knows "the truth" of what happened. The different parts of the story are exactly that: a supposed truth about Bevel's life, his downfall after the Great Depression, and about Mildred - who she was and what she liked and what wanted from life. This elements together are the core of the novel.
First, Mildred, or better, the condition of women. Everyone claims they know her best. The novelist Harold Vanner first presents a story with fictional names and invented backgrounds and moments, but he doesn't hide the Bevels are his true-life inspiration. He also implies some things that are a danger to Andrew Bevel's reputation. Then Andrew Bevel's himself wants to answer this supposedly outrageous implications and "clear Mildred's reputation" - or does he? Ida studies the case and is introducted to Bevel's house, where she finds evidences to give (or not) credit both to Vanner and Bevel. But the fact is that not a single one of them knew her enough to portrait her as she should have been. Which honestly feels kinda sad.
I belive this tells more about the women's condition than what it seems. We women are often told how to behave and what we should do, feel and perceive, from people who don't fully understand our reality. Still, everyone has opinions about us. Mildred is just one complex human being who has to make choices based on her circumstances - and I think this is clear from the start. She's the last one to have a voice in the matter of defining herself and her life, and she touches just a few points that were already brought out from the other voices in the story. And so the problem is:
Whose voice do we trust?
The book is a perfect demonstration of how the truth is a puzzle of messy information that doesn't have just one way to be put together. It's up to the reader to find out a truth, the one we feel it's the most... trustworthy. Maybe it's just one of the voices, or perhaps a combination of all of them. What's best is that this is a dynamic reading in which we readers are called to partecipate, reflect on the different sides of the story and decide whon to trust.
But here comes the funny part: who could tell my truth is actually the truth?
I think now it's clear why I decided to create a blog as well as an Instagram page. Everything is fine until you find a book you'd talk about forever and you have not enough space to do it justice. I tried to condense it all in the picture description, but it's impossible.
Thanks if you've read until here! You're my hero!
Until the next one...
Bye ~
Nymphna
Comments
Post a Comment