Just a wonderful a read as the authors other books. The world building and story telling was expertly done. I felt immersed in the story.

It took me a moment to get invested but once again the writing was brilliant. I was not disappointed. I love how the stories and timelines came together. Can’t wait to see what she does next!

Hanya has done it again, what a compelling novel. I continue to think about it—it's one of those novels that lingers long after you've read it.

This is both similar and simultaneously very different than A Little Life, which is one of my favorite novels of the past decade.. The concept behind this book is intriguing and the characters are well drawn (if not as amazingly and intricately fleshed out as those in ALL) but I am not sure that it holds together as a cohesive whole. Having said that, I did greatly the book and appreciate an author taking a risk. I look forward to what comes next from Yanagihara.

Such mixed feelings about this… The writing is excellent of course, and each of the stories showed the author’s skill at capturing humanity and compassion. Each story (or should I say book!) echoed each other, with common names, themes and locations…a New York of the past and future, imagined and real. Characters often have little agency, have complicated love stories, struggle with family, illness, grief. But after investing so much time, I did end up feeling a little like I was at arms length from what the book was trying to say….. maybe I’m just not smart enough fid this one!

Sio much to decipher here but this book is like the best kind of puzzle. Each piece fits together in one way and then the book changes and the pieces reassemble in a different way. I feel like I need a giant chart to see the big picture but I'll settle for a reread. The book is just that good and just that complicated

Hanya does it again. One of my favorite authors of all time, she can take the unimaginable and make it relatable. Although I struggled to get into this book compard to "A Little Life" and "People in the Trees", it paid off in the end. There is something so visceral and human about everything Hanya writes.

The idea of paradise evokes a dream-like utopia, a place where worries are few and luxuries plentiful.

In her new novel, award-winning writer Hanya Yanagihara invites us on an epic journey far deeper than that tourist’s snapshot. “To Paradise” (Doubleday, $32.50) showcases three visions of New York, in 1893, 1993 and 2093. Characters share names across time periods, and a house in Washington Square links the trio of stories. But these are distinct tales, ones that beckon readers to plumb the connections between people.

“All the characters are hoping to go someplace where they feel they can, finally, feel a part of society; where they can (feel) a sense of belonging,” she said in an e-mail interview. “Paradise, for them, is not only a physical elsewhere, but a familial elsewhere as well.”

Yanagihara will discuss “To Paradise” Jan. 25 at an event sponsored by BookPeople, one of only three events she is doing in the United States.

If you’re a literary fiction fan, you might know her previous blockbuster, “A Little Life.” The 2015 novel won the Kirkus Prize and was a finalist for the National Book Award and the Man Booker Prize. Shortly after it hit best-seller lists, she took on her current day job as editor of T, The New York Times’ style magazine.

The divide between acclaimed fiction and T’s glossy glamour mirrors the gulf in reactions to Yanagihara’s work. While numerous critics celebrated “A Little Life,” others questioned its unrelenting trauma, which includes childhood sexual abuse, prostitution and self-harm. And even before “To Paradise” arrived on shelves Jan. 11, some compared the 700-page novel in scope and influence to “War and Peace,” while others decried its structure and her often-bleak depiction of gay men.

None of the discourse makes its way to Yanagihara, who rejects Twitter, doesn’t read reviews and has told several interviewers that her novels’ true audience is her and her alone. “I write only to please myself,” she told The New Yorker in a wide-ranging profile published the day before “To Paradise.”

That doesn’t mean she’s completely averse to wanting her readers to think about certain questions.

“One of the things I hope this book makes readers ask is what it means to be a parent: Might being a parent be as simple as an older person taking care of a younger person? And what does ‘taking care’ mean, anyway? At what point does love, or protectiveness, become oppressive?” she said.

Her rendering of 1893-era New York as part of the Free States, where marriage between men is an unremarkable part of life, prompts more questions, as does the dystopian future section, where unnamed plagues have led to totalitarian government. In 1993, New York has weathered the ravages of AIDS, and another same-sex couple wrestles with the weight of secrets and the impacts of colonization.

“America is such a young country, one in a state of permanent flux, and I wanted to offer three different ideas of what this country could be or might be — or, as is the case in the second section, set in 1993, an America that will be recognizable to some but not to others,” Yanagihara said.

“We all experience our country like this: There is no shared, collective, unanimous idea of America, and that fractaled perspective is both one of the things that makes this nation dynamic, yet makes it fractious as well.”

Centering relationships between men both reflects reality and serves as a platform to unpack assumptions, she said.

“Gay people have always existed, no matter what they called themselves at the moment,” she said. “Gayness itself is a normal facet of life; in the first section of the book, however, New York is part of a coalition of states called The Free States, a nation-within-a-nation that wasn't founded on Puritanism. I wanted to explore how a society's definition of love — and gender — would by necessity change if it had a fundamentally different idea about how people should live.”

Though Yanagihara couldn’t have anticipated this while writing, recurring plot points of plague and disease in "To Paradise" are especially timely as America begins its third year of battling COVID-19.

“I've always been interested in disease, especially mass disease,” she says. Yanagihara suffered from severe asthma as a child. When she was a pre-teen and living in Tyler, her father, a doctor, arranged for her to visit the local pathologists’ office so she could practice drawing from cadavers.

“We tend to romanticize pandemics as equalizers, but in fact, the opposite can be true: Even though we began COVID all at risk, it soon emerged that some of us were at greater risk than others,” she said. “No one can insulate themselves entirely from a highly infectious illness (that is, if they plan to still interact with people), but some of us have a much better chance than others.”

WOW. To Paradise is unlike any book I've ever read. In fact, it felt like reading three books unlike any book I'd ever read. I had heard of Hanya Yanagihara before, but never read A Little Life. I also requested to read and review this title without realizing the length--720 pages. Part alternate history-part dystopia, To Paradise was at times confusing and challenging, but nonetheless a joy to read throughout.

Each part is set at least partially in a New York City mansion in 1893, 1993, and 2093. Same-sex marriage is legal and commonplace, but many other familiar social challenges persist. The final part--2093--depicts a terrifying dystopian future of totalitarian control in the name of containing a deadly pandemic.

Many character names recur in each part, despite being separated by large time spans. To be honest, I never quite parsed the significance of this--be it literary or denoting actual genealogical relation. At first confusing, it did lend itself to the feeling of continuity and oneness between the different characters and storylines that make up this glorious whole.

Many thanks to Doubleday Books and NetGalley for the opportunity to read and review this book.

Through three stories, Yanagihara tells the story of love, loss and family. The first story is set in an alternative American set in the early 1900s. A grandson of a rich family falls in love with someone deemed unworthy and must make a choice between his family money and love. The second story is set in the 1990s during a goodbye party given by a gay couple. Throughout the party (which is for a dying friend, dying of AIDS). the younger man in the couple thinks back on his father, a descendant of the King of Hawaii. The final story is set in the future where the world is too hot and New York is divided into zones.
I loved the way Yangahar revealed things throughout the different stories. You are reading and wandering what is going on and slowly, like pealing away layers of onions, she reveals the world that you are in. Make sure you spare some time, because it will take some to read it but it's worth it in the end.

"A distinct left turn for Yanagihara, one rooted in more mature social and psychological nuance but which the author is unequipped to support, either emotionally or formally, at its long-winded length."

From my Library Journal review.

I really like Yanagihara's prose, but, like A Little Life, I found this book to be overlong and seemingly focused on packing in the misery for its various characters. I am definitely not one to demand sunshine and roses or a happy ending (to the contrary, I find that kind of story extremely boring). However, at a certain point I just felt fatigue for our dear characters and the endless suffering that they endured. I also felt uncertain about how well the semi-interconnected narratives worked. The different sections follow characters who share names and--sometimes explicitly--ancestry, which sometimes works but often doesn't. I like the dreamlike quality that this evokes, but it didn't quite work for me as a narrative device on which to hang such a long novel. The alternate history worldbuilding and near-future pandemic-ridden dystopia are similar in that these settings have interesting elements but just doesn't feel like they have strong foundations (is this meant to be more of a thought experiment, or a fully fleshed-out world? is there meant to be a somewhat garbled commentary on the COVID-19 pandemic?). Similarly, the seemingly interconnected thread of helplessness, passivity, and illness among many (all?) of the main characters is perplexing, as it's so strong but I can't place what the purpose is narratively. Certainly not every element of every story needs to have deeper meaning, but I was craving some depth in one or another of these elements of the story. I was drawn through this novel through the beautiful writing and the strength of its characters, and these facets did make me feel real emotions, but overall I don't feel it lived up to its promise.

Summary;
In an alternate version of 1893 America, New York is part of the Free States, where people may live and love whomever they please (or so it seems). The fragile young scion of a distinguished family resists betrothal to a worthy suitor, drawn to a charming music teacher of no means. In a 1993 Manhattan besieged by the AIDS epidemic, a young Hawaiian man lives with his much older, wealthier partner, hiding his troubled childhood and the fate of his father. And in 2093, in a world riven by plagues and governed by totalitarian rule, a powerful scientist’s damaged granddaughter tries to navigate life without him—and solve the mystery of her husband’s disappearances.

These three sections are joined in an enthralling and ingenious symphony, as recurring notes and themes deepen and enrich one another: A townhouse in Washington Square Park in Greenwich Village; illness, and treatments that come at a terrible cost; wealth and squalor; the weak and the strong; race; the definition of family, and of nationhood; the dangerous righteousness of the powerful, and of revolutionaries; the longing to find a place in an earthly paradise, and the gradual realization that it can’t exist. What unites not just the characters, but these Americas, are their reckonings with the qualities that make us human: Fear. Love. Shame. Need. Loneliness.

To Paradise is a fin de siecle novel of marvelous literary effect, but above all it is a work of emotional genius. The great power of this remarkable novel is driven by Yanagihara’s understanding of the aching desire to protect those we love—partners, lovers, children, friends, family and even our fellow citizens—and the pain that ensues when we cannot.

Review: I loved the authors writing style but this is not a book I enjoyed reading

A powerful book. This was one that I had to take several breaks from and come back too. I sometimes wanted to stay longer in some of the time periods/stories and see more play out.

The interesting aspect of the book, which I don’t think I’ve ever experienced in other books I’ve read is that every section has someone called Charles, David, Edward, Francis and Eden, and this element makes it quite confusing, as you might feel that there is a connection between one David and the next David from the following section.

I will read anything Yanagihara writes, full stop. A Little Life remains one of my favorite books of all-time, a title that has stuck with me for years after reading it. To Paradise will be the same. Heart-wrenching and also chilling at the same time. Such a way with words! I thought it was brilliant.

Another perfect book by Hanya Yanagihara. I have now read all of her books and this one takes second place behind A Little Life. I loved all three parts of this book, but the third part captured me the most. Loved it.

This is by far one of the best books I've ever read. Here is my staff pick I wrote for my bookstore-
I’ve never read a book before that captures the subtle nature of human reaction and regret so well. Told in three separate stories, all connected through one house on Washington Square, this book holds something for everyone in some unique way, personal to each reader. My heart clenched while reading, my eyes welled with tears as I closed the book, and I couldn’t stop thinking about it days later. Some books are so good they hurt- this is one of them for me.

To Paradise was a lot different than A Little Life, as it was generational trauma (over 3 generations - that required a map!). I didn't enjoy this one as much.

Author of, A Little Life, Hanya Yanagihara returns with a new epic spanning hundreds of years. To Paradise details the life and times of David, a man breaking the bonds of an arranged marriage in 1893, fighting against the AIDS epidemic in 1993, and facing the problems of a dystopic New York in 2093. In some ways, all of the characters are connected, but mostly just the same names are recycled throughout the three major sections of the book.

In 1893, David is walking back from a stroll on his estate. He is avoiding a dreaded conversation with his grandfather. His siblings have all had their marriages arranged with children and successful careers. David, the youngest of the Bingham clan only wants to remain at his Washington Square Estate in comfort. In this alternate history version of New York, the state is part of the "Free States". States that broke off from the United States during the creation of the US Constitution. Slavery is banned and gay marriage is legal as long as the marriage is arranged. It is seen as much as a business partnership than one for love. David's grandfather is of the Bingham family. One of the most prominent banking families of the free states and a war hero. He has made arrangements for David's marriage with Charles Griffith, of a nouveau rich family. One not as prominent as the Binghams, but respectable. The one major drawback is that Charles is an old man (42) and that makes David reluctant to marry. While they have various arranged meetings in their courtship, David sees a young teacher at his school and is immediately admitted. David is willing to throw away his arranged marriage and even his fortune for Edward. But is Edward all that he seems? This first part of the book seems to combine elements that could be found in classic literature. An Austinian drama around marrying well with a Jamesian villain who may only attempt to woo David for his fortune. The story is left unresolved, but hints at him choosing Edward and moving towards his own "paradise". Every section of the book ends with the phrase To Paradise.

We are then transported 100 years into the future where another young David is now in a relationship with an older Charles. It might be hinted that they may be from the same ancestral line from the previous story as their names are David Bingham and Charles Griffith. Charles upon first dating David even mentions the name, Bingham, "from that banking family" to which David replies maybe the poorer branch. David is also Hawaiian and faces many racial assaults and othering in New York. This story is centered on Charles and David's relationship while one of their friends is dying of AIDS. There is some fast-forwarding in this story that is never revisited (about David's growth as a person). This is probably the best and most fleshed-out segment of the three stories.

The second part of the second story focuses on David's father. A weak-willed person domineered by his mother but also has royal lineage to the deposed Queen. His tale is very sad. Told through a letter to his son, he recounts his own history as well as David's story until he was 11 and taken away from him. He discusses how inept he was as a father and as a person. He also discusses a time when he tried to live off the land and retake Hawaii and become king which ends in disaster. These combined stories also don't have a clear conclusion or a point but do conclude about heading towards their desires and To Paradise. (David "to paradise" in a future with Charles and David's father hoping to reunite with his son.)

Another jump 100 years into the future in a dystopic New York. Scientists are trying to solve a current pandemic meanwhile climate change and authoritarian rule make for a bleak future. Gay marriage is banned to encourage procreation due to population decline and die-off (due to the many pandemics). The local government has extremely restricted movement due to the current pandemic. This segment seems to speak to the worst fears of anti-vaxxers and is probably the most irritating segment to read. It lacks imagination, enhances the cruelty to the characters, and seems to take shots at our current situation. The main character, Charlie, and her husband David are in an arranged marriage. Charlie suffering injury from a previous virus has left her undesirable. The only one who agrees to marry her is gay and in hiding. This last story ends without tying anything together. Again, even in death, the hope is to continue To Paradise.

Yanagihara is known for writing traumatic stories for entertainment. Most praised A Little Life for its writing despite the hardship the main character faced. David is choosing love that may end disastrously in the first story, but is that love his paradise? The characters can always choose love and their own paradise in these stories, but the cruelty they face dampers these small joys. Her writing is good, but the choice in subject matter and what her characters do seems questionable. If one were to want to read gay fiction with real characters one could easily read Rabih Alameddine, Garth Greenwell, or Brandon Taylor. This book may not be worth getting through.