And now, book friends, I will attempt to compile the remainder of my thoughts about the infamous A Little Life by, Hanya Yanagihara. I’ve been both looking forward to and dreading this final review, as I have so many thoughts and feelings about this book.
For the sake of formality - A Little Life centers on the friendships between four men - JB, Malcolm, Willem and Jude. Their friendship begins in undergrad and the book covers their friendships through to their middle-aged years. The novel orbits specifically around Jude and his vague, traumatic childhood. In this review, I’ll focus more on themes that stuck out to me and some parallels I noticed between other works of fiction and even the cover art, because I really want to remain as spoiler-free as possible.
A concept that I noticed throughout this novel is this idea of privacy, specifically in one’s mind, and how one’s mind can serve as a sanctuary; an untouchable place when the rest of one’s body has been subject to everyone else’s whims. Jude stubbornly and obsessively refuses to disclose what happened to him as a child, even to his closest friends. They have some vague inklings, but they have no clue how deep is the depravity that Jude endured. This is Jude’s attempt to protect himself in the last way he knows how because, what happens to a person once they reveal everything? What will they have left and at what point should others allow someone to not speak? At what point does being transparent actually become detrimental?
There came a point in the novel, right around the halfway mark, in which I was greatly reminded of Lolita by, Vladimir Nabokov. I’m so glad I read Lolita earlier this year, or else I wouldn’t have picked up on some of the things in this novel. I’m curious to know if Yanagihara drew an inkling of inspiration from Lolita - she even uses a form of the word “nymphet” (if you know, you know). Jude, like Lolita, is a victim of child abuse. These abusers play on the innocence and vulnerability of children, while simultaneously blaming the child, thus allowing them to groom these children. Look at some of the similarities in the two quotes from these texts.
A Little Life: “What a great smile you have Jude.” “What a lovely person you are.” … it was as if the greenhouse was someplace bewitched, somewhere that transformed him into … someone funny and bright, someone people wanted to be around, someone better and different than he actually was.”
Lolita: “Now I wish to introduce the following idea. Between the age limits of nine and fourteen there occur maidens who, to certain bewitched travelers, twice as many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymph (that is demoniac); and these chosen creatures I propose to designate as “nymphets.”
Also, while reading Lolita, I ironically thought that, as uncomfortable as most of the content is, especially since it’s from the perspective of the abuser, how much more uncomfortable it would be from the perspective of Lolita? Ah, and then comes A Little Life that, in a sense can be analyzed as a text that answers this question. Oh, it’s more uncomfortable, but even more dynamic and profound. In Lolita, we get very few glimpses of how Lolita is coping and we have no idea what is going on in her head. In A Little Life, we get everything.
In my Halfway Review of A Little Life, I discuss how poignantly Yanagihara portrays friendships, especially male friendships. This is a central element of the novel, because Jude’s friendships and relationships, for the most part, are stark contrasts to the relations of his childhood. Jude’s post-childhood friendships are nuanced and there is so much “grey” to them. The relationships in this novel are not just platonic or romantic; they vary. While reading this novel, I kept thinking about how the Ancient Greeks have five words to describe different types of love, which led me to ask some questions - what happens to relationships when we try to only make them platonic or romantic? When our platonic love seems deeper and more complex, why do we always assume that our option is romantic? What about how the Ancient Greeks described love?
“But his friendship with Jude made him feel that there was something real and immutable about who he was, that despite his life of guises, there was something elemental about him, something that Jude saw even when he could not, as if Jude’s very witness of him made him real.”
I’m a huge fan of existential novels and A Little Life is dream for those of us who love a good existential crisis in our narratives. Jude is constantly asking himself, “Who am I?” “Am I the person who I see, or am I the person that other people see?” How does one reconcile and coexist with the various versions of one’s self that are floating out there, depending on who is defining that person?
There is a stunning passage of Willem, Jude’s best friend” describing Jude as he sees him and it’s just … gorgeous.
“You’re Jude St. Francis. You are my oldest, dearest friend. … You’re a New Yorker. … You’re a swimmer. You’re a baker. You’re a cook. You’re a reader. You have a beautiful voice, though you never sing anymore. … You’re patient. You’re generous. You’re the best listener I know. You’re the smartest person I know, in every way. You’re the bravest person I know, in every way.”
I want to very briefly touch on the theme of fictional realism; briefly, because I’m going to devote a whole post to this concept in the near future. Some readers of this book have claimed that A Little Life is traumatic for the sake of being traumatic - they call it “trauma p*rn.” I whole heartedly disagree. Jude’s childhood is far more common than people realize. Nothing about the content shocked me. I’ve heard real life stories of this type of abuse countless times, in fact I’ve heard of real stories even more insane than Jude’s. Why is it that when we come across this type of content, especially when it’s in fiction, we write it off as voyeurism and sensationalism? Why does fiction that is uncomfortably realistic get categorized as “trauma p*rn,” when it blatantly shoves real life in our faces? What does this mean about how we view fiction? Have we become gatekeepers of what can and cannot be fictionalized? There is one quote in A Little Life that strongly reminded me of my favorite quote in Fahrenheit 451.
A Little Life: “What he knew, he knew from books, and books lied, they made things prettier.”
Farenheit 451: “Do you know why books such as this are so important? Because they have quality. And what does the word quality mean? To me it means texture. This book has pores. It has features. This book can go under the microscope. You’d find life under the glass, streaming past in infinite profusion. The more pores, the more truthful recorded details of life per square inch you can get on a sheet of paper, the more ‘literary’ you are. … Telling detail. Fresh detail. The good writers touch life often.”
Lastly, I want to discuss the cover art for this particular edition, as well as the title of this novel. The cover of this book is a photograph by Peter Hujar titled “Orgasmic Man.” This is such an appropriate and ironic selection. This photograph, without knowing the title, would initially make one think that this person is in pain. But isn’t that Jude’s life? His life has been a life of pain and pleasure. He has experienced the worst and the best of life, and life straddles the fine line between pain and pleasure and this cannot be avoided. The title “A Little Life” is a play on words - this novel examines life at the micro level. Yes, Jude is the focus, but it brings in those that orbit around Jude and their lives as well. Jude also struggles with feeling that his life is “little” and insignificant. He battles with the idea of a legacy. What has his life, full of so much pain, but also so much success, contributed to the world?
Honestly, I could go on and on about A Little Life. I adore this novel. I love this novel. People often say they cannot recommend this novel to anyone because of the content. Is this novel for everyone? No. No novel is “one size fits all.” I completely understand why some people don’t want to read this book, or why they start and decide not to finish. You have to make the personal decision to take what has been presented and hinted to you about the content of this novel (and any novel for that matter) and autonomously decide if this is something you want to read or not. I cannot tell you how you’ll react, because I don’t know. I actually think Lolita is a good gauge - if you couldn’t get through that, or would never read it, then you may not be able to get through this. Again, we are adults here. Make your own choice. You know yourself better than anyone else, so make that decision for yourself. But if you are on the fence and leaning towards it, go for it. Take your time with it. It deserves space and time to breathe. I do believe this is a novel that has been shrouded in so much emotional hype, that it’s actually doing this novel a disservice. This book is so much more than it's challenging content, which is why I made the attempt to dive into the many facets of this novel. This is a 800+ page book. There is a lot of other content here, people!
A Little Life took me by surprise and I’m rarely ever surprised. This novel got into my skin and it’s imprinted itself on my thoughts. I’m going to make a bold statement: The Brothers Karamazov was going to be the top read of 2021. It’s been bumped to second place and I highly doubt anything else is taking A Little Life’s place for the remainder of the year. A Little Life is also now in my top three reads of all time. I can’t rave about this book enough. This is a novel that I will reread this over and over again. Absolutely breathtaking.
Rating: 5/5
Like my bookish content? Follow me on Instagram for more!
You’re the Only other person I’ve seen draw the connection between Lolita & A Little Life & my idea as to why is that people are forgetting or unaware that critical literary analysis often means finding meaning where the author didn’t intentionally put any. I think a little life did what nobokov Tried to do, but for an even broader & less receptive audience (in an age of low literacy rates & clickbate). It isn’t necessarily or objectively Better than lolita, but the pov is much more compelling imo. When I was writing my own review for this book, I stumbled upon the comparison & once I saw it I couldn’t unsee it. They’re like perfect foils for one another! I’m definitely using lolita as my example gauge for whether or not to recommend a little life to anyone going forward. Props to you for seeing that connection too, it took me years to catch up!
ReplyDelete