Who has read "Trust" and who liked it??

[Anonymous]

Hi! I was excited to read Trust, this year's Pulitzer Prize winner, and yet--about 20 pages into the second narrator, I started wondering, "How is this part that different than the previous part?" My mom and friend are coincidentally reading it at the same time, and we're all having this same bewildered reaction, and not sure if we're going to finish it--but it's a Pulitzer Prize winner! I usually like their selections. I get that there's going to be a critique of capitalism, and sure, limited gender roles, but....is there something to look forward to here? I want someone to tell me what they liked about it!

[Anonymous]

I couldn't make it through. My friend's mom read the whole thing and couldn't believe it won either.

[Anonymous]

Well, this endorses perspective (this is OP.) funny how many moms are involved in reading this one, too!

[Anonymous]

I couldn’t get through the first chapter.

[Anonymous]

I’m at the beach with a friend and she just finished. She was uncertain, too, until the stories started to merge (?) and then she liked it. She ended up liking the book and suggested I read it next.

[Anonymous]

I really liked it. I am confused as to how someone could not tell the difference between the different parts. Because they were. . . Really different. It is about who gets credit and who gets to write history. Which seems kind of relevant right now.

[Anonymous]

I finished it and thought it was just ok. The third part was the best -- it was strange to have to read through what was effectively two prologues to get to the main story.

[Anonymous]

All of the pieces of the book come together in the last section or two. It would have been helpful early on for me to understand that these were books within a book. The first piece is a fictional story written about Andrew bevel and his wife Mildred that was viewed by Andrew to have slandered them. The second piece is Andrew’s incomplete attempt to write a memoir that would salvage their reputation and rewrite their story (in response to the slanderous second piece). The third piece is the story of the woman who helped Andrew write his memoir. I have already probably given what some would consider spoilers here —- but the last piece has a late reveal that pulls it together. The fourth piece is short but pivotal. You have to make it all the way through to understand the meaning of the book.

I almost gave up during the second piece and again during the third piece. But I am glad that I stuck with it because I do think the full work raises some interesting questions. Who gets to write history? What are the beliefs we have about what happened based upon the authorship of the histories we know? Whose histories were erased and what were their stories? Why do those with money, capital, and the right gender control the narrative of history in the twentieth century? What have we lost because of that and what stories have gone unknown?

So, the initial stories are kind of boring. After reading the last stories, you understand their role in the overall narrative. Try the audio book for the boring parts.

[Anonymous]

I listened to it on Audible but it was a slog.

[Anonymous]

Made it through the whole audiobook while recovering at home from an injury. Would not have made it through if I weren’t confined to bed.
- Hard to see what it was about.
- characters were boring, unbelievable and one dimensional, even when seen from multiple perspectives.
- was it supposed to be interesting because it was about a wealthy capitalist?
- the author spent some time mastering mass-market “authoritative” voice of the second rate early twentieth century books and articles - but why?!

[Anonymous]

I just read it and really enjoyed it. I liked seeing the different perspectives and slowly figuring out what was trustworthy. The second section was my least favorite, but even with that part it was interesting to start to see clues and hints about the deeper story.

[Anonymous]

I loved his first book but really didn't care for this one.

[Anonymous]

I read 10+ books per month and read most/all of the big prize-winners every year. I could not get through Trust. I rarely stop reading a book (can think of only one other in the past 5 years!). I may try again since so many people have told me the third part is worthwhile.

[Anonymous]

Just finished it. Agree that the second part in strange, but also agree that the payoff is in part three and ultimately part four. Enjoyed it in hindsight.

More elegant PP hit on the questions it raises well.

[Anonymous]

This is PP thanking everyone for weighing in, esp 6:25 up there. I decided that I'll get it from the library and skim through the parts that are so-so and dig in deeper when it gets to parts 3 and 4. I do like those questions about privilege, history, and authorship, even though they have been discussed quite a bit in other books--and even in Hamilton. (Who lives, who dies, who tells your story?)