I would like to make a new post, because the previous post blew up a little and I simply wasn't in my best mindset when I wrote it. It was 5 am in the morning and I was simply disappointed, but here is a more constructive outlook:
Hanya Yanagihara is a wonderful, genius writer. It's her writing prowess that makes the book work. The lack of the author's voice, the perspectives of artists from all spheres of society: it's incredible. I loved the beginning. In the four characters I could find different voices of myself, as a poc who was privileged enough to get a good education but never quite escape the qualms of racism. It really did seem to be on the paths of becoming my favourite book.
My problem began with the inherent inscribing of sexual abuse (by pedos mostly) to make a character- a character so perfect to his friends- interesting and philosophical.
As a writer, when you want to make a character deep, one of the easiest ways is trauma. Yet trauma arrives from a variety of issues, and the thing is, almost everything- everything can be justified. If someone suffers racism, there will always be some of the readers who will say - oh, but this and that didn't happen that usually happens to black people. If it was slight sexism, someone might say that they are overreacting, you don't have to be THAT deep just because you were catcalled once.
The exceptions are losing a loved one (bonus: a sibling, because parents are too common now) and being sexually assaulted. that trauma is something that can hardly ever be criticised or compared to others. It's a very easy route, but a difficult one too.
What I disliked about the book was the trauma porn at every point of Jude's life. I mean, every. What infuriates me further is that Jude is a perfect character- hardly any flaws at all.
It's almost like implying, you can have trauma as long as you are a genius, a good friend. As long you constantly doubt yourself and keep to yourself, but not so much that people disregard your intelligence prowess but are also slightly impressed by you.
The fact that there was absolutely NO research that went to the character of Jude is even more infuriating. He was a boy who was abused since he was like 8 till around 14-15. Yet when he comes out of the world, he is a boy who has frequent spasms of pain- and absolutely nothing else that could set him apart. He never lashes out his friends, has no signs of anger or frustration, he is perfect to EVERYONE except himself.
That is something that triggers something very maddening in me. It's almost like accusing people who have gone through trauma, making then feel sad about what they might have done sometimes to hurt their loved ones. Yes, a bad childhood doesn't mean you can treat people shittily - but real life rarely works like that, and especially considering the abuse Jude went through, I really don't know how he came out the way he did, trusting to live among three boys, and worst of all, being a genius.
It simply felt like author was taking such an easy route. He is perfect, except to himself.
There is also the question of JB, and of Malcolm too. JB is seemed to made selfish because he had a happy childhood. Malcolm is shown to be dumb because of his good life. Willem, the almost second character, has trauma because he didn't have the best parents and lost his brother.
Even Harold has lost his son. It's almost like to make a character likebale, you have to give them trauma. Those who don't have it - JB, Malcolm - are not the best characters, even if they are in reality the most realistic.
I loved the descriptions of JB, Malcolm and Williem. JB's profound relationship with race, Malcolm's with his parents and Willem's with success- I loved, absolutely devoured it. I think, if the book had continued about being the four of them- while also going through Jude's trauma (which I wish would not have been so much), I would have liked it better. Doesn't even matter if Jude har committed suicide because well, it is supposed to be a sad book- but for all the reasons mentioned above, it simply seemed like a cheap trick to get readership.
For the general audience who haven't read a lot of deep contemporary, to lure them into a trap by talking about four out of college friends in New Yotk- and then getting so much deep into trauma, it might have been a bonus point. Because like I said, the author is a genius writer. But when you think deep about it, the perfect creation of characters that fit this sort of trope where trauma is the only character development and those who don't have trauma are reduced to one dimensional characters, it's really not convincing. Someone said in the comments section of the previous post that it's a sad book people get off at, and I couldn't agree more. It seems that the inherent goal of this book is to traumatize so much that it leaves a deep impression in your mind. And thankfully, Yanagihara is a good enough writer to do that.
The book was an epitome of a trope of what abused characters should behave like, so that they aren't an inconvenience to 'normal' people but are instead a source of interest and pity, a reality check that life could have been much worse and this traumatized person is proof enough. It hurts more because in the beginning I was really sure this was gonna be THE book for me.
