Sign in with Facebook
Roman Clodia's Reviews > The Great Believers
The Great Believers
by
by
There’s an important story here (at least in the 1985 strand) as AIDS cuts through the Chicago gay community – but something about Makkai’s style left me feeling mostly disengaged from it in emotional terms. Sure, I had moments of anger as we witness a dead man’s parents exclude his lover from the funeral, the horrible voyeurism that makes a thing of a man being gay, black, whatever. But overall I was never able to get involved or attached to what is going on.
Add to the style a baggy structure that flips between 1985 and 2015, and a whole other story that has little connection to the first one other than featuring the same character, and the book started to alienate me further.
What is it about contemporary authors that they almost all seem to think that they need multiple narratives, times switches and excess baggage to create a novel? A more careful, focused, intimate story of the AIDS crisis and its effects might have made this more palatable.
Add to the style a baggy structure that flips between 1985 and 2015, and a whole other story that has little connection to the first one other than featuring the same character, and the book started to alienate me further.
What is it about contemporary authors that they almost all seem to think that they need multiple narratives, times switches and excess baggage to create a novel? A more careful, focused, intimate story of the AIDS crisis and its effects might have made this more palatable.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Great Believers.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-31 of 31 (31 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
CanadianReader
(new)
May 27, 2018 01:56PM
It seems that many modern works would do better if pruned down to short stories. Sounds frustrating.
reply
|
flag
There's definitely more than a short story, but no need for all the other tales that get shoehorned in and which needlessly push up the page count - frustrating, as you say, CR, and downright irritating!
Yes! I totally agree with you in that there was no real connection between the two timelines. I was confused as to why the modern timeline was needed at all!
It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction in contemporary writers to have dual timeframes, different narrators or focalisers, without necessarily thinking about how they impact the shape of the story. Bring back strong editors, I say!
I am not through it yet but am with you so far. I keep putting it down to look on GR
I so agree ... I thought the AIDS story could have stood on its own as a devastating period in the 80s. The Paris story didn’t resonate with me, and I’m still trying to figure out the whole cult aspect?
I'm 150 pages in, feeling the same way, and wondering if I should continue. :(
It would be interesting to know if the age of readers influences their thoughts. I am of the generation that directly experienced the devastation of this disease. I know it affected—and still affects—my relationships even though I physically escaped the plague. So. much sadness, anger, and fear originated with those years.
I cannot think of another book in the “AIDS canon” that has attempted to trace the disease and its impact from it appearance in the US to the present. Nora’s character helps us see how those who experienced the early years of the disease are still affected even if they never contracted the virus themselves.
I found this to be the best, and most powerful, book I read this year.
You might well be right, Mark: I really *wanted* this to be a powerful and moving reading experience about a history that I didn't live through - but something about Makkai's style left me stranded on the outside feeling nothing :(
Roman, so glad I'm not alone - you put your finger on it - I was totally disengaged. . . never got involved. Major disappointment - Susanne Ellman
You can not feel connected to the story and not particularly like the structure, but to believe that writers--especially incredibly careful and thoughtful ones like RM--just randomly choose a certain structure is crazy.
Yes, you're probably right, but the structure diluted rather than strengthened the 1980s story for me.
I totally agree with your review. I'm struggling to stay connected to the storyline.
I loved this book, and I also agree with everything you've said here, particularly the part about multiple narratives and time switches. Sometimes I want a straightforward, linear narrative, which seems to be, I don't know, something writers today perceive as unsophisticated?
This book takes work to read. You have to be committed to reading it or you might quit before it starts making total sense, lifelike in its braiding of story lines & intimate, inside Niko & Fiona’s head in turn, following their thoughts as they meander through emotion & memory. I think, although not the right read for everyone, it is one of the best books I’ve read.
Couldn't agree more. I'm 1/3 of the way in and I just don't really care about the characters or the story lines.
I couldn’t agree with an assessment of a book any more than this
This assessment is spot on. I was so disappointed by this book. The 2015 strand was pointless, and who cares about the ins and outs of an art bequest???!
I couldn't agree more!
For me 2015 story was about the disconnection between two generations. The Fiona's generaton that went through the pain compared to Claire's generation that was so disconnected from Fiona's feelings, and Serge's who took his rights for granted.
I’m about a quarter of the way in and every time I start to feel a connection to Yale or another character it gets lost in the timeline switch and I feel like I’m rebuilding the emotion all over again. I was really wanting to like this book and haven’t quite given up but I came to read the reviews to see if I was the only one feeling this but I guess not.
You put into words exactly how I felt about this book! I'm so glad it wasn't just me!
You're right. I lost interest in the 2015 story very quickly.
In both stories, the choices Yale and Fiona made in a moment resonated and interacted in important ways, down the years. That could have been better realized, but I disagree about leaving the Paris narrative out altogether.
I so agree with you for the lack of emotions
Totally agree. Having another timeline where we see Fiona grapple with her losses and meet a survivor is interesting, but the whole daughter storyline was a drag and took away from the main story.
I’ve been searching for the right words to take away from this novel. Parts of this narrative really engaged me but others found me skimming just to get through it. Your review is spot on.
Spot on review is right! It was something about her writing style for me that I had difficulty making connections with her characters. Also, I felt like there were too many characters to keep track of, ones who were hardly introduced. I appreciated the content and the story she was telling, just not in the style it was written.
This is perfect review
As I read it, the 2015 story was about the lasting trauma of the AIDS crisis. It didn’t just affect those who were sick, it affected those who loved them and survived them, and those who were too young to experience firsthand. Fiona’s losses to the “war” of AIDS impacted her relationships and parenting. She failed to form strong relationships with those closest to her, perhaps because in her experience everyone she loves will be lost anyhow.
