![]() But because of this, I found it hard to connect with the characters, as they have problems connecting the world, or being understood, or are even in an institution. But the novel is so massive, I actually found it difficult to make those connections, except for the house at Washington Square, that was a clear and easy connection between the sections, but I didn’t find the characters linked as closely as I would have liked to engage me.Īnd one of the clear themes and links between the sections was that the main characters have some mental illness or are neurodivergent. This is what the cover blurb seemed to say what would happen, with connections between characters in the three parts hinted at, the same names, but for different people, and the same location and similar themes. I enjoyed a similar device in other novels, like Michael Cunningham’s The Hours, or I’m even thinking about Caryl Churchill’s play ‘Cloud Nine’, with two acts, where the same characters are portrayed in each act, separated by years, and the actors swapping roles, so there are interesting connections between them. To Paradise’s three-part structure promised some interest. ![]() Can you read it on its own merits and try not to compare the two? But this was a hard task for me: I loved ‘A Little Life’, was engrossed in the story, felt deeply for the characters and I’m not sure another book has made me burst out crying (and in public, on a bus, no less). ![]() It’s always difficult, that second book, after the one you fell in love with. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |