An
important book. That’s how I’d
initially regarded
Rebecca Makkai’s The
Great Believers
(Viking, 2018). I knew from skimming a review that it was a novel
about AIDS, after all. But that hadn’t been enough. If it had come
out in 1990, I’d have devoured it, just as I’d worked my way
through Randy Shilts’ And
the Band Played On,
sobbing at many spots, getting riled up at many more. But the urgency
has long faded, at least here in North America. Maybe that’s why I
only made it through the first twenty pages when I checked this book
out from the library last year. I stumbled across the title again
when I was in Stockholm this fall and jotted down the name, having
forgotten that I’d abandoned the book once already. Thank god for
memory lapses. This time around, the important book quickly evolved
into a compelling, entertaining read.
The
story begins in Chicago in 1985 at a makeshift memorial for Nico who
has just died from complications from AIDS, his gay lover and friends
excluded from the official family funeral held twenty miles away.
Nico’s feisty twenty-one-year-old sister, Fiona, has boycotted the
funeral, opting to be with loved ones who never shunned him. Chapters
alternate between 1985 Chicago (and the years thereafter), told from
the perspective of Nico’s dear friend Yale, and 2015 Paris where
Fiona is trying to locate her adult daughter, with whom there has
been no communication for three years. Parts of the story go back to
pre- and post- World War I as well, since 1980s Yale, in his new
position working for a fledgling art gallery at Northwestern
University, has to make trips to Madison, Wisconsin to meet up with
Fiona’s great-aunt, Nora, who may or may not have a significant art
collection to
bequeath from
her time in the thick of the Parisian art scene, connecting with
greats like Amedeo Modigliani and Tsuguharu Foujita.
The
story is about profound loss and how to keep alive the memory of
loved ones who died in what should have been the prime of life. Just
as aging Nora is still driven by a passionate love affair from more
than sixty years ago, Fiona finds her life forever impacted by her
deceased brother and his gay community of friends. Indeed, in an
excerpt from a 2015 chapter: “They weren’t all dead. Not all of
them. On October 13 she’d held her own quiet memorial, alone in her
house, for Nico. Candles and music and too much wine. Thirty years.
How could it possibly have been thirty years? But that was just the
start of the worst time, when the entire city she’d known was
turning into lesions and echoing coughs and ropy fossils of limbs.”
Often,
in reading this book, I ached right alongside Fiona. The book is so
well-researched, the events of the AIDS crisis so realistically told,
that my own friends and acquaintances—Stephen and Don and Farrell
and Jose—came vividly back to life as well, frozen in time at
twenty-eight and thirty-two. Knowing how prognoses began to change
beginning around 1995, The
Great Believers
brings back heartache and a rueful, devastating series of If
Onlys.
Quoting from the same page: “She had so much guilt about so many of
them—the ones she wished she’d talked into getting tested sooner,
the ones she might have gone back in time to keep from going out on a
particular night…, the ones she might have done more for when they
got sick.”
The
plots about the possibly valuable art donation and Fiona’s missing
daughter are told well enough, but the heart of the novel involves
how the AIDS crisis impacted one particular social circle in 1980s
Chicago. The accounts of decisions to get tested (or not), of
fretting over the results in what was then
a tortuously
long two-week
wait period, of hospital visits, of rapid declines witnessed on the
street or in bars, of debates about bathhouses and of rising civil
disobedience vividly convey the time. For me personally, I was still
closeted back then, my awareness of AIDS developments coming solely
from news sources (and, yes, Shilts’ magnificent tome). The
Great Believers
masterfully adds flesh to the facts that I knew. This work of fiction
makes things real.
Given
the subject matter, there were scenes that I struggled to get through
and I had to put the book aside one night, angry with a plot decision
Makkai made. It was silly. She was keeping things brutally real; I
was fighting for some trace of fairy tale. Happily ever afters had
no place in that time. Didn’t we think it was only a matter of time
before AIDS got us all?
For
more than a generation now, there have been happier fates,
endings postponed indefinitely. That means that a large portion of
the LGBTQ community has no personal knowledge of such a darker time,
one which also gave rise to more political activism leading to so
many of the changes we see happening today. AIDS was our war. The
Great Believers is a powerful book to help us remember, to help
others understand. An important book, yes, but also one that is so
very well told.
5 comments:
RG, I'd be curious to hear your comments on the following two articles:
https://quillandquire.com/omni/is-it-time-for-canadian-gay-literature-to-leave-its-comfort-zone-and-respond-to-the-grindr-generation/
https://quillandquire.com/omni/is-it-time-for-canadian-gay-literature-to-leave-its-comfort-zone-and-respond-to-the-grindr-generation/
Why? Because I sent my novel to three publishers in mid-September, and I recently heard back from the one I thought would be most interested and ask to see the rest of it. They wrote, "This book is not for us," and "It is not within the realm of what we are currently looking to publish."
I checked out their current list, and they're not publishing anything written by or about white, gay men. Their list is made up of fiction and non-fiction from women, Indigenous, Muslim, transsexual, etc., writers. Looks like all kinds of diversity is being published these days, but white, gay men are not diverse enough.
Doesn't bode well for my novel, whatever is mine to write about, or what I most want to write about. (Although, to be fair, I have still to hear from two other publishers I submitted my novel to at the same time as the other.)
I also bring this up because, while what happened to us in the 1980s deeply affects you and me, there's a whole generation or more out there that knows nothing about it––and, I fear, doesn't care to know anything about it. According to one of the articles, they want to see themselves in current LGBT literature, which includes technology, Grindr, desire (I don't see how that's changed), etc.
When did I become part of a sad old generation no one cares about hearing from anymore?
Hi Rick,
Congratulations on finishing your novel and sending it out! It would be great to chat over coffee sometime to talk more deeply about the points mentioned in your comment. For now, I'll say that I'd like to believe there's room on the shelf for everyone.
Keep in mind that the most lauded recent gay novel was Pulitzer Prize-winning Less by Andrew Sean Greer (a book that left me somewhat disappointed) written by a gay white man about a gay white man. The Great Believers was a Pulitzer finalist, written by a white woman whom I presume is straight.
Diversity is hot in publishing these days and should not just be a trend but something to consider from this point forward. That brings on concerns about cultural appropriation and the hiring of sensitivity readers. It's dicey stuff. In a couple of manuscripts I'll be submitting in the New Year, I have some diversity in supporting characters--a black trans woman, some Latino characters--based on people I've known, some extra research and, yes, my creative skills, such as they may be. Still, I'm a gay white man and that's the perspective I know best. It is what it is.
I've listened to many agents and editors over the years on various panels at writing conferences. Time and time again, they say a compelling story is, first and foremost, what they want. Trends aren't worth following, they say, because the market may very well change by the time an accepted manuscript goes through the editing and publishing stages. It can otherwise be a bit agonizing figuring out what they want. There's lots of lip service to work that is "fresh", "original" and from a "new voice", but then there's also an expectation that writers list comparable recent titles. Publishing is a business and, for all the talk about fresh and new, publishers feel more confident about their decisions when there's an established market out there. (I had one editor, with whom I had an established working relationship, turn down one of my projects expressly because there was nothing on the market like it...which was precisely why I felt the need to write it!)
I can't change who I am and neither can you. What we can do is continue to strive to grow as writers, to revise the hell out of our work, to research the market in hopes of finding a possible match with an agent/editor/publisher and to rebound from rejection so that we may persevere. Confession: I got what I felt was a harsh critique from one agent back in May and I haven't submitted anything since. I was particularly vulnerable at the time so I felt the wounds more than I'd like to believe I would have under different circumstances. The agent was one I greatly respected from a series a YouTube spots I'd watched. I'd thought we'd be the perfect match. Alas, my rejections come on both the dating and the publishing front!
As this is a quiet time in the publishing biz between American Thanksgiving and the New Year, submitting anything now seems like it would be in greater danger than usual of being lost or swiftly cast aside in the slush pile. Come the middle of January, I'll be sending out queries anew!
Continue to figure out what your comp titles are and to research where you want to submit your work. Best of luck!
Hi again, RG.
Would you consider holding a Skype or FaceTime session with me? Despite living relatively close to each other, I don't go downtown often, but it would be great seeing and talking to you. If not, I totally understand.
A quick word of thanks. I sincerely appreciate your generous and thoughtful response to my comment. You make some wonderful points, which have given me something to think about, and which are helping me to look at what's happening more positively. Again, thank you.
Happy to come out your way sometime in January.
A couple final thoughts for now. What do I know about what's hot or what's missing in contemporary gay fiction? I'm currently rereading E.M. Foster's Maurice! Furthermore, my favourite book I've read this year is Stewart O'Nan's Henry Himself, a very quiet story about a 70-something straight white guy in Pittsburgh going about daily life. I think readers aren't always looking for what's considered cutting edge. Quite often what I choose is the equivalent to comfort food.
Wow! But you do know I live at the end of the earth, right? Particularly in relation to you, and where I used to live (the West End), which I miss dearly. Anyway, an in-person visit––maybe we could meet each other half way––would be great, but the offer is always open to Skype or FaceTime.
And let's face it, RG, you and I might choose something to read that's classic (or older), but consider our respective ages. From what I can tell, readers under 40 are who's getting publishers's attention these days, even though I'm not convinced they read anything beyond what's on their phone screens. Like you, I believe diversity is important, and there's room for all of us. That said, I'm sure the publisher who declined my novel didn't read past the synopsis (which I worked my ass off to perfect). I got the first fifty pages back, and they don't appear to be browsed, let alone read. Maybe I'm wrong. Let's hope.
Post a Comment