Novels depend on their narration. Their truthfulness lies in the hands of those who recount the story. Trust, by Hernan Diaz, contains four stories: a fiction novel based on the main character and his wife, an autobiography by the main character, a memoir by a woman the protagonist hired to write his biography, and excerpts from his late wife’s journal. As expected, these narrations are not as similar as the reader might prefer, begging the question: who can the reader trust?
First, we must break down the motives and mindsets of the narrators. The first story, a fictional account of events, is told from the perspective of a narrator removed from the protagonist’s life, but with an understanding of his career and way of life. The second is bound to be more biased towards the main character, as it is an autobiography; this applies to the memoir as well, given that he pays her well to write it and he embellishes his life and success to portray a story that looks favorably upon him. The fourth, however, is different from the rest. The protagonist’s wife’s journal presents thoughts meant for no one else’s eyes. Her portion contributed an air of reality in a novel where characters showcase anything but authenticity. Her journal reveals that she was the genius behind her husband’s stock market exploits.
Controlling the narrative, Diaz opens the novel with an illusion of truth, peeling back layer by layer to reveal the facade the protagonist sells to society. He effectively communicates that money and power can hide just about anything. His ghostwriter, Ida Partenza, fears his power and notes his control over his wife and the world. His wife grows weary of his manipulative tactics, pursuing autonomy. This theme is present in the novel as well. With each section, Mildred’s character becomes more and more developed until her actual story surfaces. Diaz introduces her illness as insanity, portraying her as senile and unable. Later, he reveals that, in reality, she suffered from cancer, a more respectable disease. The insanity of Mildred’s alleged degree was common for women at the time and believable in that her sensibility and levelheadedness would be disabled. Moreover, cancer is a noble ailment, one that plagues men and women both and often keeps mental capacities intact. Mildred’s portrayal evolution serves as a guide to the reader when the final truth is presented.
The four parts of Trust convey several distorted accounts of a story. We see that the sole truth-teller in the novel writes for herself rather than anyone else, hinting that truth is complex. Revealing the truth is complex due to who it involves and their subsequent actions. Hearing the truth is often disappointing or heart-shattering, and delivering it is dangerous. In the end, no matter the narrator, the best option is often to trust.
I find myself wanting to argue with one little thing you said, and not in a “you’re wrong” kind of way, just as like a “what if we looked at it from this angle”. You described the novel within the novel, “Bonds”, as having a narrator removed from the protagonist's life, which I would argue that later on we see when Ida is looking through Mildred’s books and accounts of who attends her events, Vanner’s name pops up (page 302). This would suggest that Vanner actually did know at least Mildred in a more private setting then we were previously led to believe. Would this change your perspective on how truthful Vanner’s novel is? Granted it is fiction and there were events proven to be made up by Vanner, but I think one could argue that this would give Vanner more credibility, at least more than we thought. Would this make him more trustworthy and if not how come Ida was so gung-ho on using Vanner’s novel and characterization of the Bevels in her rendition of the story? Is it only based on the sole purpose that this was really the only piece written about them? Or perhaps since she was making up a narration of Andrew Bevel’s life, using another made-up narration somehow inspired her? Not sure.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Diaz communicates that money and power can hide just about anything, especially the power of narration. Mildred is the obvious example of this coming into play. We see multiple depictions of her and mostly from men “putting her in her place” as was stated in the book (idk what page and that’s probably not the exact quote). But Vanner uses this insanity angle to diminish the credibility of Helen aka Mildred. And similarly Mr. Bevel dumbs Mildred down, making her into this meek, simple creature which in turn diminishes her credibility as a smart, strong woman. We see the diminishing of women's accomplishments again through Ida’s interactions with her own father and boyfriend. She’s regarded as just the woman of the house, responsible for all the chores and when she makes more money and has a relatively respectable job she’s shunned. Just goes to show that the theme of money and power throughout the book is solely about mens’ money and power given the day and age. However one could certainly argue that this idea is still very prevalent today.