Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Anchor (2014), Edition: Reprint, 496 pages
DDC/MDS
| 813.6 |
Description
Joining an anthropologist's 1950 expedition to discover a lost tribe on a remote Micronesian island, a young doctor investigates and proves a theory that the tribe's considerable longevity is linked to a rare turtle, a finding that brings worldwide fame and unexpected consequence.
Media reviews
Hanya Yanagihara’s novel takes the form of a purported memoir of a disgraced medical scientist-slash-anthropologist, introduced and footnoted by one of his colleagues. It’s hard to ascertain who is less reliable here: the doctor, Norton Perina, imprisoned for abusing native children he adopted,
Show More
or his delusional supporting amanuensis, who thinks the doctor is being vilified and who falls all over himself to make excuses for Perina’s odd behavior. ... In short, it’s just too damned interesting to put down, which makes it an extremely auspicious debut novel. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member whitewavedarling
Yanagihara has crafted a frighteningly believable, and an incredibly strange, story with this novel. Maybe more than any other novel I've read, it truly reads as the piece of nonfiction/memoir it is meant to represent--what I mean by this is that you'll have to remind yourself, over and over again,
Questions of ethics, of personal and professional responsibility, and of health and science are interwoven into nearly every page of the novel, creating a web of situations which are as difficult for the reader to approach objectively as they are for the scientist/narrator to approach from a more public subjectivity. In the end, readers read about his actions through a film of horrified fascination, finding his beliefs and actions all too possible, all too reminiscent of how a scientist might move in an unknown world.
Is this horrifying and uncomfortable and strange? Yes. Are the descriptions and built worlds as beautiful as they are foreign, as believable as they are new? Yes. Does this piece of fiction read like nonfiction, built true to life? Yes. Is it hard to read, hard to accept, and frightening to contemplate, expertly crafted and carefully considered? Absolutely, and that's why it's just so terrible as it is wonderful.
Recommended for anyone interested--this one won't be for everyone, but it is worth the journey, oddly enough, and it won't be easily forgotten.
Show More
that you are reading fiction. As such, the reading is sometimes dry, and it might not come together in the fashion you'd expect of a novel, but it is a strange journey in and of itself. Questions of ethics, of personal and professional responsibility, and of health and science are interwoven into nearly every page of the novel, creating a web of situations which are as difficult for the reader to approach objectively as they are for the scientist/narrator to approach from a more public subjectivity. In the end, readers read about his actions through a film of horrified fascination, finding his beliefs and actions all too possible, all too reminiscent of how a scientist might move in an unknown world.
Is this horrifying and uncomfortable and strange? Yes. Are the descriptions and built worlds as beautiful as they are foreign, as believable as they are new? Yes. Does this piece of fiction read like nonfiction, built true to life? Yes. Is it hard to read, hard to accept, and frightening to contemplate, expertly crafted and carefully considered? Absolutely, and that's why it's just so terrible as it is wonderful.
Recommended for anyone interested--this one won't be for everyone, but it is worth the journey, oddly enough, and it won't be easily forgotten.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bibliovermis
This book had one of the most deplorable narrators I've ever encountered, yet was wildly engrossing. Usually hating the main character is a barrier to entry for me, but in this novel—which is written as the memoir of a narcissistic, arrogant, misogynist, ruinous medical scientist named
Sometimes the (true) author's attempts to show, right off the bat, that Norton (the fictional author) was not to be liked were almost ludicrous in their lack of subtlety. Who, in writing their own memoir, would so casually mention the enjoyment he got from murdering helpless lab mice? Who, looking back on events of the 50s and 60s from the 90s, would so baldly reveal and revel in their hatred for women's bodies and minds? Who would unabashedly recount their complete lack of shock or dismay when witnessing sexual acts performed on children? Shouldn't he be at least pretending to think about getting the reader on his side?!
On the other hand, this is a consistent part of Norton's narcissistic character. He seems surprised and full of disbelief whenever it is revealed to him that others do not think and feel exactly as he does. That, in fact, his is usually a minority opinion never seems to cross his mind, and neither does the fact, though pointed out to him in seemingly uncountable ways, that many of his actions are utterly reprehensible.
What's really astounding is the framing introduction and epilogue, written by someone who seems to think Norton is the best dude ever. The fact that either of these atrocious, despicable narrators were at all interesting to me is a testament to the excellence of Yanagihara's writing.
Show More
Norton—the protagonist is not presented as an antihero but as a completely, unabashedly horrible person, and in his own words. It was weirdly refreshing.Sometimes the (true) author's attempts to show, right off the bat, that Norton (the fictional author) was not to be liked were almost ludicrous in their lack of subtlety. Who, in writing their own memoir, would so casually mention the enjoyment he got from murdering helpless lab mice? Who, looking back on events of the 50s and 60s from the 90s, would so baldly reveal and revel in their hatred for women's bodies and minds? Who would unabashedly recount their complete lack of shock or dismay when witnessing sexual acts performed on children? Shouldn't he be at least pretending to think about getting the reader on his side?!
On the other hand, this is a consistent part of Norton's narcissistic character. He seems surprised and full of disbelief whenever it is revealed to him that others do not think and feel exactly as he does. That, in fact, his is usually a minority opinion never seems to cross his mind, and neither does the fact, though pointed out to him in seemingly uncountable ways, that many of his actions are utterly reprehensible.
What's really astounding is the framing introduction and epilogue, written by someone who seems to think Norton is the best dude ever. The fact that either of these atrocious, despicable narrators were at all interesting to me is a testament to the excellence of Yanagihara's writing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Magatha
Holy crap. For a detailed description of this book, let me just refer you to the reviews already written by others, because they are very insightful.
I should have hated this book, but I didn't. I do not know how Hanya Yanagihara did it, but she wrote a novel from the point of view of a hideous
Among the things it made me think of: Patricia Highsmith's novel "This Sweet Sickness" (which is even more monstrous) and, oddly, the career of former senator Bill Frist, who acknowledged that while in medical school, he routinely obtained cats from animal shelters in Boston under the guise of adopting them as pets, but instead dissecting them in furtherance of his studies. Big old red danger flags, but if you act normal and earnest and bloviate about the greater good, you can go pretty far with your weirdness.
So I'm left wanting to remember this book at the same time I'm wishing for a vat of brain bleach.
I should have hated this book, but I didn't. I do not know how Hanya Yanagihara did it, but she wrote a novel from the point of view of a hideous
Show More
psychopath (as presented by his creepily bug-eatin' editor) without breaking character, and yet the whole thing is infused with a truly subversive acuity. So, in other words, I didn't have to hate myself for being a party to the grotesquerie by having read it.Among the things it made me think of: Patricia Highsmith's novel "This Sweet Sickness" (which is even more monstrous) and, oddly, the career of former senator Bill Frist, who acknowledged that while in medical school, he routinely obtained cats from animal shelters in Boston under the guise of adopting them as pets, but instead dissecting them in furtherance of his studies. Big old red danger flags, but if you act normal and earnest and bloviate about the greater good, you can go pretty far with your weirdness.
So I'm left wanting to remember this book at the same time I'm wishing for a vat of brain bleach.
Show Less
LibraryThing member chrisblocker
This is a strange book, but not as strange as I had anticipated it being. The fictional story of a young man (Norton Perina) who tags along with an anthropological research group into the jungles of the island of Ivu'ivu in search of a lost tribe is unique. Add to that the discovery of “the
In the case of The People in the Trees, the novel's best quality is also its one downfall. I love that the entire story is told as a memoir. It works exceptionally well. It allows a minor character, editor and friend of Perina, to pepper Perina's memoir with what could be unreliable narration. At the same time, it makes the whole story feel more credible. Footnotes abound providing ample information both real and fictional. Yanagihara made a very wise decision choosing this format for the book.
At the same time, the structure was not always true to itself. Especially toward the end, the true biographical nature of the book was sacrificed for the story. The tone of the memoir no longer matches the media. In order to forward the story, the once professional Perina becomes overly confessional and sentimental. Would Perina include such elaborate scenes of dialogue from his personal life in a book he intends on releasing to the public? What friend of Perina's would allow such personal details? Though it would've taken some work, I think the author could've sacrificed some of the clearer story and stayed true to the biographical format of the work. Yes, it would've forced her readers to make their own conjectures, possibly misunderstanding the novel, or disliking it because of its unclear intent, but it would've fit. I think Yanagihara is a talented enough author to have pulled it off.
In spite of and because of its challenging form, The People in the Trees is an exceptional debut. It elicits questions about morality from its readers on many different levels. Certainly not a book for the casual reader seeking a riveting story, The People in the Trees is a slow build up of “what if”s and “what about”s. And, if you're “fortunate” enough to find Perina's opa'ivu'eke turtle, you'll have hundreds of years of think these questions over.
Show More
fountain of youth” through the consumption of a local turtle and you've got a story teeming with magical possibilities. Though the tribe has its share of strange customs, and the turtle itself particularly stands out, the story is a fairly straight-forward narrative, a biography about the man who went on to win a Nobel, and subsequently was jailed for molestation charges.In the case of The People in the Trees, the novel's best quality is also its one downfall. I love that the entire story is told as a memoir. It works exceptionally well. It allows a minor character, editor and friend of Perina, to pepper Perina's memoir with what could be unreliable narration. At the same time, it makes the whole story feel more credible. Footnotes abound providing ample information both real and fictional. Yanagihara made a very wise decision choosing this format for the book.
At the same time, the structure was not always true to itself. Especially toward the end, the true biographical nature of the book was sacrificed for the story. The tone of the memoir no longer matches the media. In order to forward the story, the once professional Perina becomes overly confessional and sentimental. Would Perina include such elaborate scenes of dialogue from his personal life in a book he intends on releasing to the public? What friend of Perina's would allow such personal details? Though it would've taken some work, I think the author could've sacrificed some of the clearer story and stayed true to the biographical format of the work. Yes, it would've forced her readers to make their own conjectures, possibly misunderstanding the novel, or disliking it because of its unclear intent, but it would've fit. I think Yanagihara is a talented enough author to have pulled it off.
In spite of and because of its challenging form, The People in the Trees is an exceptional debut. It elicits questions about morality from its readers on many different levels. Certainly not a book for the casual reader seeking a riveting story, The People in the Trees is a slow build up of “what if”s and “what about”s. And, if you're “fortunate” enough to find Perina's opa'ivu'eke turtle, you'll have hundreds of years of think these questions over.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Bookmarque
Did anyone else pick up on the Herbert West reference at the beginning? I literally did a double take. It has to be deliberate - a fellow researcher into drugs to make us live longer? Oh please tell me it is.
Spoilers!
Now I’ve gotten through the whole thing, I’m not sure how I feel about it.
That’s Norton’s default position I think, he’s callous. His observations about the people on the island are non-judgmental to the extreme in some areas and I have to think that it’s to allow him his depravities. The ceremony that he describes as an initiation disgusts a fellow researcher who he finds fault with because she can’t get past the fact that young boys get publicly raped during it. He finds sexual promiscuity in the children on the island to be just another of their quaint customs although by and large I think the people repulse him. It’s his dry, clinical approach, his innate callousness and his rationalization of practices outside the western norm that let him run amok among his adopted children. And I admit, much of what is described during the expedition to Ivu-Ivu made me cringe and I didn’t much like Victor either. In the end, I sort of sympathized with Norton until I read the extent of his punishment and revenge. Prior to that, I was ambivalent about Norton, his attitude, his research and the repercussions for the people.
That sums up how I feel about the whole book - largely unmoved. I didn’t identify with the narrators (and who could?) and couldn’t empathize with the subjects of their research. The whole story is a foregone conclusion so getting emotionally attached wouldn’t have amounted to much anyway. The destruction of the people, their culture (what little of it they had), the turtles, the island; it is a sad condition repeated so often in real life that it’s hard to care about it in fiction. Same with the larger theme of western research taking absolute precedence over the concerns of any other culture. Then there’s the question whether a despicable person’s important work/discoveries/contributions can still be valuable. Does Josef Mengele’s work have validity even though he was a monster? I don’t know, but frankly I can’t get worked up about it.
I do admire the construction and framing of the story however. The inclusion of news reports added to the verisimilitude of presenting the story as memoir. Can we have a follow-up book about what happened to Paul Tallent? That would be sweet.
Spoilers!
Now I’ve gotten through the whole thing, I’m not sure how I feel about it.
Show More
Yes, the narrator and the editor are lowlifes, but it’s their self-delusion that makes them fascinating. Take the editor, Ron; he’s basically in love with Norton and he starts out by defending him and claiming he doesn’t believe Norton abused his adopted children. He says he’s going to judiciously edit Norton’s memoir and one has to surmise he has the whole thing in front of him, but then at the end when he reluctantly includes the most telling piece of the narrative, it reveals that Norton is guilty by his own repulsive admission. If the editor did indeed have all the facts, it is shocking to discover his own callous depravity.That’s Norton’s default position I think, he’s callous. His observations about the people on the island are non-judgmental to the extreme in some areas and I have to think that it’s to allow him his depravities. The ceremony that he describes as an initiation disgusts a fellow researcher who he finds fault with because she can’t get past the fact that young boys get publicly raped during it. He finds sexual promiscuity in the children on the island to be just another of their quaint customs although by and large I think the people repulse him. It’s his dry, clinical approach, his innate callousness and his rationalization of practices outside the western norm that let him run amok among his adopted children. And I admit, much of what is described during the expedition to Ivu-Ivu made me cringe and I didn’t much like Victor either. In the end, I sort of sympathized with Norton until I read the extent of his punishment and revenge. Prior to that, I was ambivalent about Norton, his attitude, his research and the repercussions for the people.
That sums up how I feel about the whole book - largely unmoved. I didn’t identify with the narrators (and who could?) and couldn’t empathize with the subjects of their research. The whole story is a foregone conclusion so getting emotionally attached wouldn’t have amounted to much anyway. The destruction of the people, their culture (what little of it they had), the turtles, the island; it is a sad condition repeated so often in real life that it’s hard to care about it in fiction. Same with the larger theme of western research taking absolute precedence over the concerns of any other culture. Then there’s the question whether a despicable person’s important work/discoveries/contributions can still be valuable. Does Josef Mengele’s work have validity even though he was a monster? I don’t know, but frankly I can’t get worked up about it.
I do admire the construction and framing of the story however. The inclusion of news reports added to the verisimilitude of presenting the story as memoir. Can we have a follow-up book about what happened to Paul Tallent? That would be sweet.
Show Less
LibraryThing member PamelaBarrett
When I’m going to review a book, I don’t read other reviews, so that they don’t color my opinion. I do read what the publisher or editor sends out, and what the book cover synopsis states about the author and story. But in this case I wish I had read something more, so that I could have been
My first clue that something ugly might be inside, was in the first few pages, before the preface, where there were some quotes (supposedly) from The Associated Press, and Reuters stating that the doctor (in later years) was arrested for rape, statutory rape, and endangering a minor. But after reading the preface by another doctor I thought maybe it was a false accusation. The second inkling I had that this was going to a dark disturbing place, happened in part 2 where he is starting medical school, experimenting on animals and conveying a complete lack of empathy in the suffering of the mice, dogs, and monkeys. Again I excused his behavior given the time period and the context of “all for the greater good of medical discoveries” that medical students and lab workers are exempt from; but this lack of empathy was a revealing look into his moral character. Then in the middle of the book, when they were finally in the jungle and made contact with the tribe; a child is raped, in a ceremony, as the doctor watches, observing, detached and justifying it as part of their culture. Enough already, this was sickening, and it makes me wonder about what publishers and editors consider “fresh new voices” and the best book of 2013; and why author’s who have choices in the retelling of a “based on a true stories” have to go to this depth of graphic detail. I’m doing something I hate doing, because I love books, but this one is going to the dump. It gets 1 star, because I have to give it something.
Show More
cautioned about what this story was really about. I thought I was getting an adventure story about a young doctor and an anthropologist, who discover a lost tribe in the jungles of an island; based on a true story and similar to some books I’ve read. My first clue that something ugly might be inside, was in the first few pages, before the preface, where there were some quotes (supposedly) from The Associated Press, and Reuters stating that the doctor (in later years) was arrested for rape, statutory rape, and endangering a minor. But after reading the preface by another doctor I thought maybe it was a false accusation. The second inkling I had that this was going to a dark disturbing place, happened in part 2 where he is starting medical school, experimenting on animals and conveying a complete lack of empathy in the suffering of the mice, dogs, and monkeys. Again I excused his behavior given the time period and the context of “all for the greater good of medical discoveries” that medical students and lab workers are exempt from; but this lack of empathy was a revealing look into his moral character. Then in the middle of the book, when they were finally in the jungle and made contact with the tribe; a child is raped, in a ceremony, as the doctor watches, observing, detached and justifying it as part of their culture. Enough already, this was sickening, and it makes me wonder about what publishers and editors consider “fresh new voices” and the best book of 2013; and why author’s who have choices in the retelling of a “based on a true stories” have to go to this depth of graphic detail. I’m doing something I hate doing, because I love books, but this one is going to the dump. It gets 1 star, because I have to give it something.
Show Less
LibraryThing member nfmgirl2
This is the fictional story of scientist Norton Perina's adventures in the fictional islands of U'ivu, the research that developed from his time there, his ethical breaches, awkward social relationships, and unsettling personal life. This book begs the question...
"If a great man does unspeakable
This book is loosely drawn fromt he life of Nobel laureate Daniel Carleton Gajdusek, who won a Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1976 for his work on the infectious brain disease kuru, which was prevalent among the South Fore people of New Guinea, and who was later convicted of child molestation in 1996.
Norton was something of a scientific misfit, not respected among his peers, young and inexperienced. Then one day he is sent to the remote Micronesian country of U'ivu, for what reason he does not know. He soon discovers that he is to assist anthropologist Paul Tallent, who is searching for a mysterious tribe that lives on Ivu'ivu, the most remote of the islands of U'ivu.
While on the island, they discover this "forgotten" tribe of U'ivuans on the island of Ivu'ivu who appear to have abnormally long lifespans that are triple the norm or longer, living 200 or 300 years or more. And Norton theorizes that their long life is connected to their ingestion of a certain turtle. However the same individuals who live extraordinarily long lives are also lost to a serious mental degradation that leaves them stumbling around with severe cases of a condition resembling Alzheimer's.
This book follows Norton over the decades, shifting from his childhood to his professional life, and then ending on a more personal note.
Considering that this novel is written in the form of a memoir, you have to give the fictional character of Norton Perina credit for his honesty. He is unabashed, as a child, in his frank exposure of himself, his thoughts and motivations. He is unapologetic. Well, occasionally he makes excuses, blaming everyone but himself. Other times he accepts responsibility for events, but doesn't really apologize for them. He is simply stating the way it was.
Later on Norton begins adopting children from the islands of U'ivu, as things there begin to degrade. Eventually he adopts a total of something like 40 children, offering them a chance at a better life.
My final word: I found this story to be intriguing, and it kept me wondering how it would all play out. However I found it did read something like the scientific memoir it was presented as. None of the characters are especially likable, but the story keeps pulling you along, dying to know how this will all play out. By the end of the story, as you are welcomed into Norton's personal life, you find yourself squirming in your seat, sort of uncomfortable in your own skin, almost physically cringing. Was it a fun read? No. At moments it could be touching or beautiful, but often it was awkward, uncomfortable, disturbing and a little stiff. But it was also fascinating, peculiar, and felt almost "profound". I really enjoyed it, despite being left with a bad aftertaste. It's an unsettling story, but read it anyway.
"If a great man does unspeakable
Show More
things, is he still a great man?"This book is loosely drawn fromt he life of Nobel laureate Daniel Carleton Gajdusek, who won a Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1976 for his work on the infectious brain disease kuru, which was prevalent among the South Fore people of New Guinea, and who was later convicted of child molestation in 1996.
Norton was something of a scientific misfit, not respected among his peers, young and inexperienced. Then one day he is sent to the remote Micronesian country of U'ivu, for what reason he does not know. He soon discovers that he is to assist anthropologist Paul Tallent, who is searching for a mysterious tribe that lives on Ivu'ivu, the most remote of the islands of U'ivu.
While on the island, they discover this "forgotten" tribe of U'ivuans on the island of Ivu'ivu who appear to have abnormally long lifespans that are triple the norm or longer, living 200 or 300 years or more. And Norton theorizes that their long life is connected to their ingestion of a certain turtle. However the same individuals who live extraordinarily long lives are also lost to a serious mental degradation that leaves them stumbling around with severe cases of a condition resembling Alzheimer's.
This book follows Norton over the decades, shifting from his childhood to his professional life, and then ending on a more personal note.
Considering that this novel is written in the form of a memoir, you have to give the fictional character of Norton Perina credit for his honesty. He is unabashed, as a child, in his frank exposure of himself, his thoughts and motivations. He is unapologetic. Well, occasionally he makes excuses, blaming everyone but himself. Other times he accepts responsibility for events, but doesn't really apologize for them. He is simply stating the way it was.
Later on Norton begins adopting children from the islands of U'ivu, as things there begin to degrade. Eventually he adopts a total of something like 40 children, offering them a chance at a better life.
My final word: I found this story to be intriguing, and it kept me wondering how it would all play out. However I found it did read something like the scientific memoir it was presented as. None of the characters are especially likable, but the story keeps pulling you along, dying to know how this will all play out. By the end of the story, as you are welcomed into Norton's personal life, you find yourself squirming in your seat, sort of uncomfortable in your own skin, almost physically cringing. Was it a fun read? No. At moments it could be touching or beautiful, but often it was awkward, uncomfortable, disturbing and a little stiff. But it was also fascinating, peculiar, and felt almost "profound". I really enjoyed it, despite being left with a bad aftertaste. It's an unsettling story, but read it anyway.
Show Less
LibraryThing member LeahMo
In 1950, young doctor Norton Perina agrees to join an anthropological expedition to Ivu ‘ivu, a Micronesian island nearly untouched by Western society. With the help of an islander, the team is able to find the mysterious “lost tribe” they wish to study — but this discovery leads to an even
Norton and company happen upon a group of exiles from the village — a group of people who are impossibly old, if the testimony of the villagers is to be believed. But immortality has a price; although “the dreamers” appear to have stopped aging at 60, they suffer extreme senility.
Determined to solve this puzzle, Norton theorizes that their immortality is gained from eating the meat of a rare turtle, the opa’ivu’eke, an animal that features prominently in the island’s mythology. He kills one of these turtles and smuggles it back to the US, where his studies confirm his suspicions. His research eventually wins him a Nobel Prize and gains international attention, and Ivu ‘ivu is flooded with pharmaceutical companies searching for a cure to aging. Of course, their efforts completely destroy the island’s environment and the culture of its people, plunging the Ivu ‘ivuans into poverty and despair.
The People in the Trees has a framing device that I really liked. It is presented as Perina’s memoir, which he has written at the behest of Dr. Kubodera, a long-time friend and colleague — wait for it — while sitting in prison after being convicted of sexually abusing a minor. Because, you see, Norton developed a habit of adopting children from Ivu ‘ivu. He acquired a few every year, so that by 1995, when Norton is writing his memoir, he has adopted and raised a grand total of 43 children. If you’re a little creeped out by this idea, just wait until you read the book.
Norton is… a bit off. If you dig unreliable narrators, look no further for your next read. He is asked to tell his story to try to clear his name and remind the scientific community that he is more than just a sex offender, but his narrative is rather unsettling. Trawling through his mind was very interesting, and he made an incredibly compelling character.
I think the memoir framing worked really well for this type of book. The novel opens with a news article about Perina’s arrest and a preface by Dr. Kubodera, explaining the whole situation — that he asked Perina to write his memoir and that Kubodera edited it, etc. Perina’s narrative is also sprinkled by Kubodera’s footnotes providing clarification or further information. Although Norton frequently does a terrible job of making himself look good, Kubodera’s interjections on Norton’s behalf were fascinating; I was dying to learn more about their relationship, which Perina doesn’t go into. It was interesting to read Norton’s story while keeping in mind the context in which it was written — and the knowledge of Kubodera’s clear bias while editing it.
The People in the Trees wasn’t quite what I was expecting; I had in mind something more like Ann Patchett’s State of Wonder, and this novel is of a very different, much darker style. However, I really enjoyed it. I think it’s a very good first novel. It’s so richly detailed that it played like a movie in my head, and Yanagihara writes a great, complex, unreliable narrator. She also provides interesting perspectives on immortality, the costs of scientific progress, and the dark minds that sometimes lurk behind brilliance.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.
More book reviews at Books Speak Volumes.
Show More
more important one.Norton and company happen upon a group of exiles from the village — a group of people who are impossibly old, if the testimony of the villagers is to be believed. But immortality has a price; although “the dreamers” appear to have stopped aging at 60, they suffer extreme senility.
Determined to solve this puzzle, Norton theorizes that their immortality is gained from eating the meat of a rare turtle, the opa’ivu’eke, an animal that features prominently in the island’s mythology. He kills one of these turtles and smuggles it back to the US, where his studies confirm his suspicions. His research eventually wins him a Nobel Prize and gains international attention, and Ivu ‘ivu is flooded with pharmaceutical companies searching for a cure to aging. Of course, their efforts completely destroy the island’s environment and the culture of its people, plunging the Ivu ‘ivuans into poverty and despair.
The People in the Trees has a framing device that I really liked. It is presented as Perina’s memoir, which he has written at the behest of Dr. Kubodera, a long-time friend and colleague — wait for it — while sitting in prison after being convicted of sexually abusing a minor. Because, you see, Norton developed a habit of adopting children from Ivu ‘ivu. He acquired a few every year, so that by 1995, when Norton is writing his memoir, he has adopted and raised a grand total of 43 children. If you’re a little creeped out by this idea, just wait until you read the book.
Norton is… a bit off. If you dig unreliable narrators, look no further for your next read. He is asked to tell his story to try to clear his name and remind the scientific community that he is more than just a sex offender, but his narrative is rather unsettling. Trawling through his mind was very interesting, and he made an incredibly compelling character.
I think the memoir framing worked really well for this type of book. The novel opens with a news article about Perina’s arrest and a preface by Dr. Kubodera, explaining the whole situation — that he asked Perina to write his memoir and that Kubodera edited it, etc. Perina’s narrative is also sprinkled by Kubodera’s footnotes providing clarification or further information. Although Norton frequently does a terrible job of making himself look good, Kubodera’s interjections on Norton’s behalf were fascinating; I was dying to learn more about their relationship, which Perina doesn’t go into. It was interesting to read Norton’s story while keeping in mind the context in which it was written — and the knowledge of Kubodera’s clear bias while editing it.
The People in the Trees wasn’t quite what I was expecting; I had in mind something more like Ann Patchett’s State of Wonder, and this novel is of a very different, much darker style. However, I really enjoyed it. I think it’s a very good first novel. It’s so richly detailed that it played like a movie in my head, and Yanagihara writes a great, complex, unreliable narrator. She also provides interesting perspectives on immortality, the costs of scientific progress, and the dark minds that sometimes lurk behind brilliance.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.
More book reviews at Books Speak Volumes.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Dreesie
At the beginning of this novel, we find out that Doctor Norton Perina is about to be released from prison, where he has spent some time after being convicted for sexual abuse of a child, involving at least one of his 42 adopted children. The story then becomes Perina telling his version of this
I listened to the audio of this on Hoopla, and it was amazing. The voice actors--especially the one who played Ron and read the many footnotes--were excellent. The actor who reads Ron comes off as amazingly arrogant, and his voice works so well for the footnotes too. The Actor who reads Perina's narration has a voice that is easy to listen to for the hours needed, but it is hard to describe--just like Norton, a sneaky quiet arrogant man.
———
We learn about Norton's childhood growing up with his twin Owen. As he is finishing med school, in the 1950s, Norton is invited to join an anthropological expedition to a remote island where an isolated tribe lives (though maybe the department was trying to rid themselves of him). He goes, and he ends up making a discovery that makes his entire career. He runs a lab and ends up adopting over 30 children from that remote island country over the next decades. And it is just one of those children who fights to make Norton pay for what he has done.
———
In this story, Yanagihara manages to touch on so many topics--without actually discussing them. The ways cultural anthropology was done--with experts inserting themselves into communities, studying people, making a career off of others, and so often destroying that civilization/community in the process; human subjects; adoption and the "white savior"; parenting by money; labs and the loose oversight; and more. I would call Norton a sociopath--he truly cares only for himself.
———
I have never enjoyed an audiobook as much as I enjoyed this one. The casting was perfect. WOuld I have enjoyed it as much in print? I have no idea.
Show More
story, as edited by his friend Ron (one of few who stuck by him after his conviction).I listened to the audio of this on Hoopla, and it was amazing. The voice actors--especially the one who played Ron and read the many footnotes--were excellent. The actor who reads Ron comes off as amazingly arrogant, and his voice works so well for the footnotes too. The Actor who reads Perina's narration has a voice that is easy to listen to for the hours needed, but it is hard to describe--just like Norton, a sneaky quiet arrogant man.
———
We learn about Norton's childhood growing up with his twin Owen. As he is finishing med school, in the 1950s, Norton is invited to join an anthropological expedition to a remote island where an isolated tribe lives (though maybe the department was trying to rid themselves of him). He goes, and he ends up making a discovery that makes his entire career. He runs a lab and ends up adopting over 30 children from that remote island country over the next decades. And it is just one of those children who fights to make Norton pay for what he has done.
———
In this story, Yanagihara manages to touch on so many topics--without actually discussing them. The ways cultural anthropology was done--with experts inserting themselves into communities, studying people, making a career off of others, and so often destroying that civilization/community in the process; human subjects; adoption and the "white savior"; parenting by money; labs and the loose oversight; and more. I would call Norton a sociopath--he truly cares only for himself.
———
I have never enjoyed an audiobook as much as I enjoyed this one. The casting was perfect. WOuld I have enjoyed it as much in print? I have no idea.
Show Less
LibraryThing member stillatim
Please explain to me why so few of my friends have read this book. It's a triumph of style--not 'voice,' not 'authentic expression,' but style. PT is, for the most part, the 'memoirs' of a medical anthropologist, Norton Perina. He is one of the great characters of this young century, and
The book's plot is glorious, as well; a little slow at the beginning, which I think is true for most well-plotted books, but ultimately perfectly balanced. Consider for a moment how rare it is to find even a moderately well-written book that is also a well plotted book. Please, buy a copy of PT and read it.
And it deals, intelligently and without condescending at all, with some of the most important ideas of our time: environmentalism, neo-colonialism, scientism, naturalism, the craving for roots, and, most of all, the difficulty of reconciling two things most of us know/feel to be true, i.e., i) that we live in an historically changing world, which is also home to many, many cultures, all of them adhering to different ethical codes; and, ii) that there are some moral truths.
But, mostly, I can't get over the formal perfection of the book. We know Norton from his first sentences: he affects tolerance, objectivity and wisdom, but is actually self-deluded. As the text unwinds, we see the delusion wind its way through the story; he is no ordinary unreliable narrator. Norton is the unreliable narrator *as scientist*, presenting us with facts and the results of experiments, proving his perceptions with every paragraph--but we know it is all false. The novel doesn't ask us to question the narrator's truthfulness; it asks us to question the truthfulness of the world that produces men like the narrator.
You can get at very important truths with the scientific method. You can also get at some very important truths using art, distance, and, most importantly, irony. And I can't do justice to how well Yanagihara does it, in this review, try as I might.
Show More
Yanagihara's ability to write in his slightly ludicrous way is an absolutely astonishing feat of literary irony. The book's plot is glorious, as well; a little slow at the beginning, which I think is true for most well-plotted books, but ultimately perfectly balanced. Consider for a moment how rare it is to find even a moderately well-written book that is also a well plotted book. Please, buy a copy of PT and read it.
And it deals, intelligently and without condescending at all, with some of the most important ideas of our time: environmentalism, neo-colonialism, scientism, naturalism, the craving for roots, and, most of all, the difficulty of reconciling two things most of us know/feel to be true, i.e., i) that we live in an historically changing world, which is also home to many, many cultures, all of them adhering to different ethical codes; and, ii) that there are some moral truths.
But, mostly, I can't get over the formal perfection of the book. We know Norton from his first sentences: he affects tolerance, objectivity and wisdom, but is actually self-deluded. As the text unwinds, we see the delusion wind its way through the story; he is no ordinary unreliable narrator. Norton is the unreliable narrator *as scientist*, presenting us with facts and the results of experiments, proving his perceptions with every paragraph--but we know it is all false. The novel doesn't ask us to question the narrator's truthfulness; it asks us to question the truthfulness of the world that produces men like the narrator.
You can get at very important truths with the scientific method. You can also get at some very important truths using art, distance, and, most importantly, irony. And I can't do justice to how well Yanagihara does it, in this review, try as I might.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Sullywriter
An amazingly inventive, intricately detailed, masterfully constructed work of storytelling.
LibraryThing member KarenHerndon
This , I thought, was a good book until the end - vey well written, I really liked the authors style. The story kept me interested throughout. But for me at least, the ending was sick. There were so many other ways she coud have ended the story I don't know why she chose the way she did, but I
Show More
found it just plain sick! Big disappointment I'm afraid. Show Less
LibraryThing member bookmuse56
My thoughts:
• I thought the author took some risks with the format of the story and how she presented some of the concepts and points. Some of it worked for me and some did not.
• The strongest parts of this book for me are the beginning and the ending.
• The beginning sets up the story and as
• As the book progresses and the narrator sets off on his journey to the South Pacific the story at times dragged a little for me with the often painful details of the expedition and how he comes to want to figure out what causes some of the people to live much longer lives than normal. This clashes with the expedition leader who is an anthropologist who wants to record and not necessarily probe the people, but the narrator is along because of his medical education and finding the anthropologic purpose of the trip not to his liking.
• There is no doubt some interesting questions/concepts to be explored – preservation of a specific culture vs becoming modern and/or having something that may help others or at least be of interest in the scientific or business world.
• As we learn about the tribe and their customs and the conflict between the expedition members – the narrator’s personality starts to reveal and show itself to the reader – racist, misogynistic, pedophilic – but the narrator does not see himself that way.
• Yes, the narrator made some interesting discoveries and maybe there was genius in his work and his approach to it but in the end was it worth the lives and culture that he disrupted.
• The ending was an even better than the beginning – but just confirms what the reader thought all along that the narrator is a despicable unlikable slimy person.
• While I did not like Norton – the author’s way of presenting him and unraveling his personality to himself, to the world, and to the reader was very well done.
• I think the author is talented and has written a uniquely different story using a format that often times you have to remind yourself this is not non-fiction but fiction.
• I thought the author took some risks with the format of the story and how she presented some of the concepts and points. Some of it worked for me and some did not.
• The strongest parts of this book for me are the beginning and the ending.
• The beginning sets up the story and as
Show More
the protagonist starts off his memoirs you get the feeling that not only is he arrogant but also something is a little off with him – but I was still intrigued to keep reading and the writing was strong in its use of words and phrasing so the reader feels like one with the story.• As the book progresses and the narrator sets off on his journey to the South Pacific the story at times dragged a little for me with the often painful details of the expedition and how he comes to want to figure out what causes some of the people to live much longer lives than normal. This clashes with the expedition leader who is an anthropologist who wants to record and not necessarily probe the people, but the narrator is along because of his medical education and finding the anthropologic purpose of the trip not to his liking.
• There is no doubt some interesting questions/concepts to be explored – preservation of a specific culture vs becoming modern and/or having something that may help others or at least be of interest in the scientific or business world.
• As we learn about the tribe and their customs and the conflict between the expedition members – the narrator’s personality starts to reveal and show itself to the reader – racist, misogynistic, pedophilic – but the narrator does not see himself that way.
• Yes, the narrator made some interesting discoveries and maybe there was genius in his work and his approach to it but in the end was it worth the lives and culture that he disrupted.
• The ending was an even better than the beginning – but just confirms what the reader thought all along that the narrator is a despicable unlikable slimy person.
• While I did not like Norton – the author’s way of presenting him and unraveling his personality to himself, to the world, and to the reader was very well done.
• I think the author is talented and has written a uniquely different story using a format that often times you have to remind yourself this is not non-fiction but fiction.
Show Less
LibraryThing member neurodrew
The People in the Trees
Hanya Yanagihara
January 10, 2014
This is a thinly disguised account of D. Carlton Gadjusek's story. I suspect that the idea of a Noble Laureate in medicine serving prison time for child molestation would have been thought too fantastic for a publisher to take a chance on it if
Hanya Yanagihara
January 10, 2014
This is a thinly disguised account of D. Carlton Gadjusek's story. I suspect that the idea of a Noble Laureate in medicine serving prison time for child molestation would have been thought too fantastic for a publisher to take a chance on it if
Show More
there were not the real life story. The story is in the form of a memoir, written during the scientist's time in prison, and edited by a friend, presumably a male lover. It is thus in the first person, and the voice of Dr. Norman Perina is distinct. One is gradually made aware of his sexual leanings, and of his arrogance and contempt of others. The first part of the book, concerning the discovery of the tribe on Ivu'ivu, and the very long lived but increasingly demented people who wander in the jungle, is a fascinating tale, lush with description and imagination. The second part, following Dr. Perina's career after the initial discovery of the opa'ivu'eke turtle that conveyed the long life, is more conventional, not as intriguing. Perina is writing his apologia, but it is clear that his actions were mainly selfish. I did not think that the discovery described in this book was worthy of a Nobel, as was Gadjusek's linking of kuru and scrapie to an infectious particle. Show Less
LibraryThing member maryreinert
Primitive peoples, anthropology, narcissism, pedophilia -- it's all here. Very well written and organized, this is truly a multi-layered novel. Told as if a scientist friend is editing the memoirs of Dr. Norton Perina, this is the story of a self-described brilliant scientist who goes on an
This is really a story of a man so caught up in his own brilliance and ego that he is totally unable to comprehend the feelings of others, whether it be his twin brother, his fellow scientists, the people he studied, or the children he adopted. A sad and unsettling story.
There are numerous footnotes used throughout the story that give it a realistic tone, but are difficult to maneuver on the Kindle.
Show More
anthropological trip to a remote island and discovers that primitive humans there can live indefinitely if they consume the meat of a wild turtle. Indefinite life does not mean they retain their mental faculties and these people are banished from their civilization only to wander aimlessly and pathetically in the jungle. Perina unethically brings this meat and his findings to the United States and is eventually awarded the Noble Prize. Intellectually brilliant, but without any sense of human connection or emotion, Perina eventually adopts forty some children from this civilization. The novel opens as Perina is found guilty of sexual abuse of children and sent to prison. This is really a story of a man so caught up in his own brilliance and ego that he is totally unable to comprehend the feelings of others, whether it be his twin brother, his fellow scientists, the people he studied, or the children he adopted. A sad and unsettling story.
There are numerous footnotes used throughout the story that give it a realistic tone, but are difficult to maneuver on the Kindle.
Show Less
LibraryThing member arubabookwoman
Norton Perina as a young doctor goes to the remote Pacific island of Ivu'ivu with a group of anthropologists in search of a lost tribe. While there, he discovers a group of people who somehow seem to have achieved the ability to live 200 years or more--but at a cost. The book is written in the form
What interested me about the book is that it is so closely based on the life of a real person--Daniel Carleton Gajdusek. I first learned of Gajdusek several years ago when I read a book about prion diseases, The Family The Couldn't Sleep by D.T. Max.Gajdusek studied a lost tribe in New Guinea, and discovered kuru, the first prion disease found in humans, which was later determined to be transmitted among the tribe members by cannibalism, as they ritualistically ate family members who died. Gajdusek also adopted 56 children from remote tribes, won the Nobel Prize in 1976, and was convicted of pedophilia. Given all these similarities I was surprised Gajdusek was not mentioned by Yanagihara as an inspiration for the character of Norton. It also seemed to me that the primary change she made--her lost tribe members achieved a sort of immortality by eating turtle meat--is somewhat less believable than Gajdusek's prion disease discovery.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed this book, and would recommend it if the subject interests you.
3 stars
Show More
of a memoir (with footnotes by a follower of Norton's), and the author's skill as a writer is to show us Norton's disagreeable, and even evil character, while we learn of his life from him in the first person. His accomplishments were notable--he won the Nobel prize and also adopted dozens of Ivu'ivuan children whom he raised and educated. However, we also learn as the novel opens that he is writing his memoirs while in prison as a convicted pedophile.What interested me about the book is that it is so closely based on the life of a real person--Daniel Carleton Gajdusek. I first learned of Gajdusek several years ago when I read a book about prion diseases, The Family The Couldn't Sleep by D.T. Max.Gajdusek studied a lost tribe in New Guinea, and discovered kuru, the first prion disease found in humans, which was later determined to be transmitted among the tribe members by cannibalism, as they ritualistically ate family members who died. Gajdusek also adopted 56 children from remote tribes, won the Nobel Prize in 1976, and was convicted of pedophilia. Given all these similarities I was surprised Gajdusek was not mentioned by Yanagihara as an inspiration for the character of Norton. It also seemed to me that the primary change she made--her lost tribe members achieved a sort of immortality by eating turtle meat--is somewhat less believable than Gajdusek's prion disease discovery.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed this book, and would recommend it if the subject interests you.
3 stars
Show Less
LibraryThing member LynnB
I really enjoyed this story of a scientist, Norton Perina, who "discovers" a lost tribe of people in Micronesia. These people have very, very long life spans, coupled with severe dementia, which Perina proves is linked to eating the meat of a rare turtle. This book raises issues of exploitation vs
It is also the story of Norton himself: his compulsions, delusions, beliefs. Without giving anything away, as the story progresses, we learn more about Norton's motivations.
The style of writing is like non-fiction. The idea is that these are Norton's own memoirs, published by a colleague and friend. The friend includes footnotes, which sometimes add clarifications, sometimes cite sources and sometimes expand on the friend's own views. It made the story more real as it had all the trappings of truth, but I found it sometimes made the characters more distant than a more conventional fictional style would have. But, a very creative use of style nonetheless.
Show More
scientific discovery, and of irrevocably ruining a culture and changing the lives of indigenous peoples. It is also the story of Norton himself: his compulsions, delusions, beliefs. Without giving anything away, as the story progresses, we learn more about Norton's motivations.
The style of writing is like non-fiction. The idea is that these are Norton's own memoirs, published by a colleague and friend. The friend includes footnotes, which sometimes add clarifications, sometimes cite sources and sometimes expand on the friend's own views. It made the story more real as it had all the trappings of truth, but I found it sometimes made the characters more distant than a more conventional fictional style would have. But, a very creative use of style nonetheless.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sturlington
On an expedition to a remote island in the South Pacific, a scientist discovers that the native people have significantly increased their lifespan by eating a rare turtle, but their immortality comes at the price of severe mental degeneration. After winning the Nobel Prize for his discovery, he is
Hmmm. This is a book that one admires rather than enjoys. Yanagihara has meticulously crafted this novel in the form of memoir (complete with footnotes), and she has created a terrific sense of place with her remote island setting. Very few people in the book like the narrator, Dr. Norton Perina, and certainly the reader does not like him either, but we are compelled to keep reading. It's like watching a car accident take place in slow motion. Perina's editor (and author of the footnotes) proves himself no more of a reliable narrator than Perina, excising key bits from the memoir, one of which he chooses to show at the very end. It's not a twist in that the astute reader will certainly see it coming. Rather, we keep saying to Yanagihara, "Don't go there; don't go there," but she of course does go there. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this book. It is not dark in an illuminating or entertaining way, but in a soul-crushing way. Its portrayal of humanity, both in the quote-unquote unspoiled natives and the relentless, invading westerners who destroy everything they touch, is bleak and fatalistic. If you care about animals, if you care about children, if you have any optimism about humanity, I cannot really recommend this book. On the other hand, Yanagihara has done her job well, in the sense that I've never read a book quite like this.
If you have read the book, raise your hand if you thinkNorton killed Tallent as a result of his obsession with him. The clue is in the timeline at the end.
Read in 2015.
Show More
convicted of sexually abusing one of his 43 children, adopted from the island.Hmmm. This is a book that one admires rather than enjoys. Yanagihara has meticulously crafted this novel in the form of memoir (complete with footnotes), and she has created a terrific sense of place with her remote island setting. Very few people in the book like the narrator, Dr. Norton Perina, and certainly the reader does not like him either, but we are compelled to keep reading. It's like watching a car accident take place in slow motion. Perina's editor (and author of the footnotes) proves himself no more of a reliable narrator than Perina, excising key bits from the memoir, one of which he chooses to show at the very end. It's not a twist in that the astute reader will certainly see it coming. Rather, we keep saying to Yanagihara, "Don't go there; don't go there," but she of course does go there. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this book. It is not dark in an illuminating or entertaining way, but in a soul-crushing way. Its portrayal of humanity, both in the quote-unquote unspoiled natives and the relentless, invading westerners who destroy everything they touch, is bleak and fatalistic. If you care about animals, if you care about children, if you have any optimism about humanity, I cannot really recommend this book. On the other hand, Yanagihara has done her job well, in the sense that I've never read a book quite like this.
If you have read the book, raise your hand if you think
Read in 2015.
Show Less
LibraryThing member klburnside
The People in the Trees opens with a newspaper article telling of Dr. Norton Perina, a Nobel Prize winning immunologist, who has just been convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor. The charges were brought by one is the many children he adopted from Ivu'ivu, a fictional Micronesian island where Dr.
The novel that follows is in the form of Dr. Perina's memoir, written from prison, complete with footnotes from his friend who edits the work. The narrative follows Perina's life from childhood, through medical school, and to his time on the island and the aftermath.
It is hard to express my reaction to this book. I finished it a few nights ago and couldn't sleep because of all the thoughts and emotions spinning around in my head.
Perina is an intriguing and complex character. While the reader doesn't know if the allegations of sexual abuse are true throughout the novel, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike Perina. He is selfish and amoral and doesn't treat the islanders or anyone around him with much respect. In spite of this, I found him to be a strangely compelling character and at times really felt sad for him.
The book raises issues of moral relativism and the impacts of environmental and cultural exploitation. Yanagihara is a talented writer and the story is creative and well-constructed. There are a lot of fake anthropological details in the book that were really fascinating. References to fictional wildlife, fake historical events, and made up anthropological studies continually had me looking things up because they seemed so true, I thought maybe it was real.
Overall this book left me feeling a strange mixture of confusion, uneasiness, and disgust. I'm still not exactly sure how I feel about it, or how the author intends the reader to feel about it, but I think it will stick with me.
Show More
Perina did much of his research that led to his fame. The novel that follows is in the form of Dr. Perina's memoir, written from prison, complete with footnotes from his friend who edits the work. The narrative follows Perina's life from childhood, through medical school, and to his time on the island and the aftermath.
It is hard to express my reaction to this book. I finished it a few nights ago and couldn't sleep because of all the thoughts and emotions spinning around in my head.
Perina is an intriguing and complex character. While the reader doesn't know if the allegations of sexual abuse are true throughout the novel, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike Perina. He is selfish and amoral and doesn't treat the islanders or anyone around him with much respect. In spite of this, I found him to be a strangely compelling character and at times really felt sad for him.
The book raises issues of moral relativism and the impacts of environmental and cultural exploitation. Yanagihara is a talented writer and the story is creative and well-constructed. There are a lot of fake anthropological details in the book that were really fascinating. References to fictional wildlife, fake historical events, and made up anthropological studies continually had me looking things up because they seemed so true, I thought maybe it was real.
Overall this book left me feeling a strange mixture of confusion, uneasiness, and disgust. I'm still not exactly sure how I feel about it, or how the author intends the reader to feel about it, but I think it will stick with me.
Show Less
LibraryThing member hubblegal
After reading this author’s second book, “A Little Life”, I knew she was an author who wouldn’t disappoint. So of course I had to read her debut book, “The People in the Trees”. Once again I was completely blown away.
This is the story of Norton Perina, a young scientist who is asked by
We know from the start of the book that Norton has been disgraced and accused of child molestation. There are actually two narrators of the book. Norton is writing his memoir and telling his own story. Also commenting throughout the book is his close friend and research fellow, Dr. Kubodera. Dr. Kubodera adds many footnotes to Norton’s memoir; however, in the e-book format, the footnotes are all at the end of each section, which sections are quite long, so it’s impossible by the time you get to the footnotes to remember what they’re referring to. The footnotes and comments by Dr. Kubodera did lend a feeling of credibility to the book, though, and made the story feel as though it were true. I caught myself several times thinking that I’d have to look that up on the internet as though it had actually happened. To my surprise, after reading the book, I learned that the author based her story on an actual person, Daniel Gajdusek, a friend of her family and similarly disgraced Nobel Prize winner, which makes this book even more shocking.
This is a chilling, spellbinding book that held me in its thrall. I do highly recommend it, though do caution that it contains some very disturbing scenes. What makes these scenes even more horrifying is the rationalizations given so smoothly by the narrators. There’s an evil worm crawling through these pages and while chills run up and down your spine, you won’t be able to look away. Hanya Yanagihara is a force to be reckoned with in the literary world. I’m looking forward to what she comes up with next.
This is the story of Norton Perina, a young scientist who is asked by
Show More
an anthropologist, Paul Tallent, to travel to the island of Ivu'ivu to search for a lost tribe of natives. Not only is the lost tribe discovered but Perina also discovers that some of this tribe has lived for centuries due to the eating of the Opa'ivu'eke turtle, for which discovery he wins the Nobel Prize. What he also discovers is that the immortality obtained comes at a terrible price to those who eat this turtle. The author expertly touches on moral and ethical issues throughout the book and shows the terrible harm that is sometimes done in the name of science.We know from the start of the book that Norton has been disgraced and accused of child molestation. There are actually two narrators of the book. Norton is writing his memoir and telling his own story. Also commenting throughout the book is his close friend and research fellow, Dr. Kubodera. Dr. Kubodera adds many footnotes to Norton’s memoir; however, in the e-book format, the footnotes are all at the end of each section, which sections are quite long, so it’s impossible by the time you get to the footnotes to remember what they’re referring to. The footnotes and comments by Dr. Kubodera did lend a feeling of credibility to the book, though, and made the story feel as though it were true. I caught myself several times thinking that I’d have to look that up on the internet as though it had actually happened. To my surprise, after reading the book, I learned that the author based her story on an actual person, Daniel Gajdusek, a friend of her family and similarly disgraced Nobel Prize winner, which makes this book even more shocking.
This is a chilling, spellbinding book that held me in its thrall. I do highly recommend it, though do caution that it contains some very disturbing scenes. What makes these scenes even more horrifying is the rationalizations given so smoothly by the narrators. There’s an evil worm crawling through these pages and while chills run up and down your spine, you won’t be able to look away. Hanya Yanagihara is a force to be reckoned with in the literary world. I’m looking forward to what she comes up with next.
Show Less
LibraryThing member TheLostEntwife
I feel duped. I mean, I have a degree in literature, I should be able to identify an unreliable narrator from miles away, right? But the way Yanaghira began The People in the Trees, with those press releases... I mean, it was like I was predestined to take the side of Norton Perina. And you will
Read the rest of this review on August 6, 2013 at The Lost Entwife.
Show More
know what I mean when you begin the book and also deal with the same, overwhelming evidence that is presented.Read the rest of this review on August 6, 2013 at The Lost Entwife.
Show Less
LibraryThing member acgallegos91
Hanya Yanagihara is fast becoming one of my favorite writers because of how evocative her fiction is. "The People in the Trees" is not as heart-wrenching as her following novel "A Little Life," but this book is so good at capturing what it means to be the aggressor and the results of his crimes.
How this novel is constructed is that the plot of Dr. Perina being part of the group that finds the Ivu'ivu people and his own discovery on how they achieve physical immortality is enough to keep the reader interested as they question Dr. Perina's motives. While this book does not market itself as a suspense or thriller, the ending is truly horrifying.
Show More
"The People in the Trees" is not so much a plot-driven novel about a doctor discovering a hidden tribe in Micronesia as much as it a character study of Dr. Norton Perina. The author dissects Dr. Perina's psyche and how he is self-involved and completely uncaring those around him by creating this novel as Dr. Perina's autobiography. Dr. Perina is the true monster of this novel - not for his conviction of being a child molester - by using everyone one in his life to advance his own purposes as a Nobel Prize winning scientist or his own self-satisfaction. How this novel is constructed is that the plot of Dr. Perina being part of the group that finds the Ivu'ivu people and his own discovery on how they achieve physical immortality is enough to keep the reader interested as they question Dr. Perina's motives. While this book does not market itself as a suspense or thriller, the ending is truly horrifying.
Show Less
LibraryThing member rmckeown
When I finished reading A Little Life by Hanya Yanagahara, the beautiful prose stunned me, while I was aghast at the horrors Jude experienced. I found the story so absorbing, so gripping, I could not stop until the last page. My mind spun and spun at the incongruity, and I found it necessary to
Hanya was born in Los Angeles to a Hawaiian father and a Korean mother. Due to her father’s occupation, she lived in several locations, including New York, Baltimore, California, and Texas. She began writing travel pieces for Conde Nast Traveler. In 2015, she became a deputy editor of The New York Times Style Magazine. People of the Trees is based on the true story of a virologist Daniel Carleton Gajdusek [Guy-dah-shek].
A. Norton Perina was a mediocre medical student who faced graduation with almost no opportunities to further his medical education. One of his professors connected him to a renowned anthropologist, Paul Tallent, who believed he could locate an unknown tribe in a south Pacific Island. He wanted to bring Norton along so that he could asses the medical condition of the tribe. He discovered a rather inexplicable paradox of the tribe members on one of the three islands which made up the tiny archipelago – the people appeared to be in their early 60s, yet evidence dictated some of the islanders were more than 200 years of age. Norton becomes obsessed with finding the cause of their longevity. In later years, he began adopting abandoned, malnourished children. He brought more than four dozen of these children to the United States and provided them with healthcare and education. His study of the people on one of the islands in the U’iva chain, Ivu’ivu, gained him a Nobel Prize in 1974. This closely parallels the life and work Gajdusek, who worked among alleged cannibals of New Guinea in the 50s and 60s. He adopted numerous children, brought them to the US, and he also won a Nobel Prize in 1976.
As was the case in A Little Life, the prose is absorbing and interesting, but People in the Trees never comes near the level of violence and horror of her second novel. The novel is actually a memoir of Perina written during a twenty-four month stretch in Prison.
A colleague, Ronald Kubodera, urges Norton to set the facts of his life down in a memoir, and he agrees on the condition Kubodera will edit the manuscript. On his first of many trips to Ivu’ivu, Norton describes the island. Hanya writes, “As we made the half-hour ride toward town, I learned of all the things U’iva did not have. There were no roads, for one – trails, yes, with patches of grass and struggling flowers tamped down by horses hooves – nor was there a hotel, or university, or grocery store, or hospital. There were, dismayingly, churches, quite a few of them, their white wooden spires the only thing taller than the palm, which cast stripes of black shadow against the dirt but offered no comfort from the sun, which washed the sky a hard glaring white. I asked Tallent – who was managing to look graceful on his small horse – if there were many horses on the island but it was his [research assistant] who answered, telling me that although a hundred or so had made their way to U’ivu in the early 1800s, most of them had died in a terrible tsunami that had destroyed the northern half of the island in 1873. The rest returned home soon after, and U’ivu was once again left to the U’ivuans, the way it had been for the thousands of years prior to the missionaries’ arrival” (100-101).
Interestingly, Kubodera weighs into the story with a series of footnotes explaining, correcting, and questioning some of what Norton writes. For example, when one of the islanders is taken to the sea shore, they were mystified. He explains, “Astonishingly, the villagers were not only not familiar with the sea, they had no notion of it at all. There is an account by Tallent of a villager being taken to see the sea for the first time and his mistaking it for ‘a sky without clouds.’ The poor man thought the world had been typed upside down and that he was entering the world of Pu’uaka, goddess of the rains. See Paul Tallent, ‘The Island without Water: Ivu’ivuan Mythology and Isolationism,’ Journal of Micronesian Ethnology (Summer 1958, vol. 50, 115-32)” (209). Hanya cleverly weaves facts into this marvelous fictive work.
Hanya Yanagahara has created an imaginative world in The People in the Trees. This absorbing, provocative story exams the devastation of cultures by outsiders, while providing a prelude to the problem of evil found in A Little Life. 5 stars.
--Chiron, 7/6/16
Show More
read more of her work. So I turned to her first and only other novel, The People in the Trees. The novel received widespread praise and was named one of the best books of 2013.Hanya was born in Los Angeles to a Hawaiian father and a Korean mother. Due to her father’s occupation, she lived in several locations, including New York, Baltimore, California, and Texas. She began writing travel pieces for Conde Nast Traveler. In 2015, she became a deputy editor of The New York Times Style Magazine. People of the Trees is based on the true story of a virologist Daniel Carleton Gajdusek [Guy-dah-shek].
A. Norton Perina was a mediocre medical student who faced graduation with almost no opportunities to further his medical education. One of his professors connected him to a renowned anthropologist, Paul Tallent, who believed he could locate an unknown tribe in a south Pacific Island. He wanted to bring Norton along so that he could asses the medical condition of the tribe. He discovered a rather inexplicable paradox of the tribe members on one of the three islands which made up the tiny archipelago – the people appeared to be in their early 60s, yet evidence dictated some of the islanders were more than 200 years of age. Norton becomes obsessed with finding the cause of their longevity. In later years, he began adopting abandoned, malnourished children. He brought more than four dozen of these children to the United States and provided them with healthcare and education. His study of the people on one of the islands in the U’iva chain, Ivu’ivu, gained him a Nobel Prize in 1974. This closely parallels the life and work Gajdusek, who worked among alleged cannibals of New Guinea in the 50s and 60s. He adopted numerous children, brought them to the US, and he also won a Nobel Prize in 1976.
As was the case in A Little Life, the prose is absorbing and interesting, but People in the Trees never comes near the level of violence and horror of her second novel. The novel is actually a memoir of Perina written during a twenty-four month stretch in Prison.
A colleague, Ronald Kubodera, urges Norton to set the facts of his life down in a memoir, and he agrees on the condition Kubodera will edit the manuscript. On his first of many trips to Ivu’ivu, Norton describes the island. Hanya writes, “As we made the half-hour ride toward town, I learned of all the things U’iva did not have. There were no roads, for one – trails, yes, with patches of grass and struggling flowers tamped down by horses hooves – nor was there a hotel, or university, or grocery store, or hospital. There were, dismayingly, churches, quite a few of them, their white wooden spires the only thing taller than the palm, which cast stripes of black shadow against the dirt but offered no comfort from the sun, which washed the sky a hard glaring white. I asked Tallent – who was managing to look graceful on his small horse – if there were many horses on the island but it was his [research assistant] who answered, telling me that although a hundred or so had made their way to U’ivu in the early 1800s, most of them had died in a terrible tsunami that had destroyed the northern half of the island in 1873. The rest returned home soon after, and U’ivu was once again left to the U’ivuans, the way it had been for the thousands of years prior to the missionaries’ arrival” (100-101).
Interestingly, Kubodera weighs into the story with a series of footnotes explaining, correcting, and questioning some of what Norton writes. For example, when one of the islanders is taken to the sea shore, they were mystified. He explains, “Astonishingly, the villagers were not only not familiar with the sea, they had no notion of it at all. There is an account by Tallent of a villager being taken to see the sea for the first time and his mistaking it for ‘a sky without clouds.’ The poor man thought the world had been typed upside down and that he was entering the world of Pu’uaka, goddess of the rains. See Paul Tallent, ‘The Island without Water: Ivu’ivuan Mythology and Isolationism,’ Journal of Micronesian Ethnology (Summer 1958, vol. 50, 115-32)” (209). Hanya cleverly weaves facts into this marvelous fictive work.
Hanya Yanagahara has created an imaginative world in The People in the Trees. This absorbing, provocative story exams the devastation of cultures by outsiders, while providing a prelude to the problem of evil found in A Little Life. 5 stars.
--Chiron, 7/6/16
Show Less
LibraryThing member ozzer
I received a digital copy of this book from Net Galleys.
This novel has a complex structure: it represents a memoir written by Norton Perina, a Nobel laureate who examined mechanisms of aging using a newly discovered Micronesian population; copious footnotes from Ronald Kubodera, one of Perina's
Yanagihara does a remarkably good job of controlling this complex narrative, maintaining interest and suspense while developing multiple themes: the negative impact of progress on people and their environment, aging and the mind-body relationship, a jaundiced view of how medical science is practiced, the negative effects of the profit motive on people and the environment. When Kubodera urges Norton to write his memoir, he tells him (us) that it is "a story with disease at its heart." This disease turns out to be much more than solving the riddle of extreme mental decline in a people who can live for ~300 years. Instead its disease focus is Norton himself: his insatiable scientific curiosity and need for fame without consideration for consequences ("language has no inherent secrets but science is all secrets"); his pedophilia and its impact on the children he "adopts", especially Victor; and Norton's image, wherein the public and he, himself, view him as a hero, but his work comes with enormous and devastating consequences.
Parts of the story are a little hard to believe, like Norton bringing children back and abusing them with very little consequence. It is also never clear where the money to support 40 children comes from. Tallent's abrupt and unexplained disappearance is also a problem.
Despite these minor problems, Yanagihara's attention to detail in developing the fictional culture and environment was particularly effective, especially the exiled aged people with mental incapacity. Tallent refers to them as the "dreamers" and they conger images of older people in our society with various forms of dementia who are warehoused.
This is an important debut novel that deals with multiple issues of significance in a suspenseful and thrilling story. It should have a wide readership.
This novel has a complex structure: it represents a memoir written by Norton Perina, a Nobel laureate who examined mechanisms of aging using a newly discovered Micronesian population; copious footnotes from Ronald Kubodera, one of Perina's
Show More
colleagues and possibly his homosexual partner; and Paul Tallent, a noted anthropologist, who is not a narrator but a significant character in the development of the story.Yanagihara does a remarkably good job of controlling this complex narrative, maintaining interest and suspense while developing multiple themes: the negative impact of progress on people and their environment, aging and the mind-body relationship, a jaundiced view of how medical science is practiced, the negative effects of the profit motive on people and the environment. When Kubodera urges Norton to write his memoir, he tells him (us) that it is "a story with disease at its heart." This disease turns out to be much more than solving the riddle of extreme mental decline in a people who can live for ~300 years. Instead its disease focus is Norton himself: his insatiable scientific curiosity and need for fame without consideration for consequences ("language has no inherent secrets but science is all secrets"); his pedophilia and its impact on the children he "adopts", especially Victor; and Norton's image, wherein the public and he, himself, view him as a hero, but his work comes with enormous and devastating consequences.
Parts of the story are a little hard to believe, like Norton bringing children back and abusing them with very little consequence. It is also never clear where the money to support 40 children comes from. Tallent's abrupt and unexplained disappearance is also a problem.
Despite these minor problems, Yanagihara's attention to detail in developing the fictional culture and environment was particularly effective, especially the exiled aged people with mental incapacity. Tallent refers to them as the "dreamers" and they conger images of older people in our society with various forms of dementia who are warehoused.
This is an important debut novel that deals with multiple issues of significance in a suspenseful and thrilling story. It should have a wide readership.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Iira
Not sure what to think of this. Disturbing and awful but also a bit boring. I did not enjoy reading it, but as I do not easily leave a book unfinished, I struggled to the end. The ending was awful too.
Endnotes are the worst even in scientific papers, and luckily the ebook version had links in the
I like Yanagihara's writing, but this was not her best work.
Endnotes are the worst even in scientific papers, and luckily the ebook version had links in the
Show More
text making jumping back and forth a bit easier. Still, I found them annoying. I like Yanagihara's writing, but this was not her best work.
Show Less
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2013
Physical description
8 inches
ISBN
9780345803313