Social Media in the Rabbit Hutch

First of all this book was insane, enjoyable and entertaining, but most certainly insane. It’s hard to pinpoint one thing to talk about, but I think media and the internet has a severe impact on the progression of events throughout the Rabbit Hutch. 

Joan works for a company that monitors comments on online obituaries and ends up deleting Moses’ comment on his mothers obituary. Without this interaction Moses’ character wouldn’t have significance, but because he claims to not be able to let “an offense like that go unpunished” he looks her up online and “found her home address without even trying” (95-96). Not only is this creepy and stalkerish, but it provides a little background into both Joan and Moses’ characters. We see that Joan doesn’t do anything to hide her presence online because she believes herself to be insignificant enough that no one would bother to even look her up, much less show up at her house. We also get a glimpse of Moses’ toxic masculinity and the reasoning behind him being at the scene where Blandine exits her body, which was foreshadowed throughout the book.

Social media also plays a huge role in Blandine’s character. She gets a message from a past student of James after dropping out of school that says “So he got you too?” (147). This makes her feel insignificant since he’s done this before and takes away any sympathy a reader might have had towards James. Blandine also goes on a rant about how horrible social media is, stating that she is “too weak for it” (211). That social media makes you addicted and preys on your insecurities while guiding you towards capitalism. Although she is very extreme in her reasoning I think she makes a great point and we do through Joan’s online obituary comments, Moses’ blog, Hope’s mommy groups, etc. how people express their loneliness and seek approval and validation through social media.

And last but not least, probably the most disturbing use of social media in the book, is Malik recording the stabbing incident. You see the image on page 362 and the entire chapter on page 355-356 of how the video ended up on youtube. In the chapter “Viral”, Sapphire has a “hard time determining what obligations she has to the people she encounters, and what obligations they have to her” (356). This ties into the expanding circle and the idea of obligations to things we see right in front of us compared to things that are a little farther away.

I think without social media a lot of events wouldn’t have occurred. It pushes Moses to go to Joan’s house which ultimately saves Blandine, who might not have lived if Moses didn’t tie his coat belt around her waist. It emphasizes the theme of loneliness and the character’s search for validation and connection. And it ties into the ethical question asked throughout the story about obligations and the expanding circle. Social media might seem inconsequential in life yet it acts as an agent in this story and gives readers access into character’s thoughts and motivations. It also provides readers with little snippets of other small side characters and broadens the world created in the Rabbit Hutch.

Connection is Life or Death

     The Rabbit Hutch, by Tess Gunty, has a large focus on connecting. True conversation allows for connection and that connection makes everyone better.  

    Blandine has a true connection with Moses the day of her attack; without this encounter he would not have saved her life after Todd stabbed her. During their conversation at the park Blandine “can’t tell if he’s just being polite, but every second of the interaction is increasing her power” (Gunty, 302). While Blandine can not tell if the conversation is truly connected, she can tell that she is gaining something from this. While she believes that it is power over Moses that she is gaining, it is actually the connection between the two characters which is being gained. This is because the reader knows that Moses has no reason to attack Blandine and wouldn’t do so if there were nothing to gain from it. This man, while not one to go out of his way to help others that he doesn’t relate to, seen by his deleting of the email by Mr. Boddy, still rushes to Blandine’s aid as soon as he sees the harm that has come to her. The bond formed during the interaction early that day pushes him to help a stranger in need.  

    Joan and Blandine have lacked this true connection during their interaction which results in Joan not reporting or investigating the sounds coming from the apartment above hers. Joan, unlike Moses, does not form a connection with Blandine. Their conversation at the laundromat is filled with forced answers and an overall need to get away, shown when Joan “checks her phone in a clunky, theatrical gesture” to give herself an excuse to leave (32). This running away from the conversation lacks the even mild interest that Moses puts into his conversation with Blandine. The repercussions of this are made apparent after Joan hears Blandine scream and decides that “attention is what that girl wants most of all —that much was obvious at the laundromat” (351). The reader knows that this is not the case at all and Blandine was fighting to stop herself from talking. This shows the lack of connection between these two characters since Joan doesn’t know Blandine at all yet makes such bold claims about her sense of self. This ultimately could have led to the death of Blandine if not for Moses and the accidental discovery of the incident by Reggie. 

    These sets of people show the impact of connection, which is brought about by honest and real conversation and interaction. If a person can make this connection occur, whether through pushing for it from others or choosing to take part in it themselves, lives can be improved.  

Living in Death

    In Tess Gunty’s The Rabbit Hutch, each character lives as if they are already dead, navigating life in a state of apathy. This theme weaves its way throughout the story with the characters in the book showing a kind of detachment from life yet a strong connection to their dying town of Vacca Vale. The characters align themselves with their dying town, essentially killing themselves in the process. Throughout the novel, each character desperately tries to find an identity of their own, but they are largely unsuccessful in finding one outside of the town. 

    Blandine, for instance, is the ultimate embodiment of such a predicament. She identifies with Vacca Vale to such an extent that she “suspects that if medical students sliced open her body, they would find a miniature Vacca Vale nestled inside it” (Gunty, 136). This town that Blandine says resides within her is quickly deteriorating; in fact, “[t]his year, Vacca Vale ranked first on Newsweek’s bafflingly heartless list of ‘Top Ten Dying Cities’”(108). Despite the gloominess of the town, Blandine adores it, and wants nothing more than to see it stay the way it currently is.

    Other characters in the novel also find themselves stuck in a state of emotional and spiritual death within a town that is fading away. Their lives are tightly connected to the town's decline, keeping them in a constant state of standstill. Their shared struggle to break free from the town's decay highlights the bigger issue of individuals trying to figure out who they are when their environment is on the decline. In fact, Jack says that “[i]f [he] ever got the chance to escape, [he] would fucking seize it” (181). The town's economic and social decline mirrors the residents' struggle to escape their own emotional and spiritual rut. Vacca Vale’s downfall mirrors the characters' own inability to rise above their circumstances and move away from their sense of being lifeless.

    In The Rabbit Hutch, the characters' attempts to establish their identities outside the town are met with numerous obstacles. The dying town acts as a significant barrier, making it nearly impossible for them to break free from its grip. As the characters tie themselves to the dying town of Vacca Vale, they seem resigned to a life that lacks vitality and potential. Their inability to carve out individual identities beyond the town effectively locks them into a state of living death, leaving them with little to no dreams or aspirations.

Mildred and Andrew's Relationship

The 1920’s was a period of great economic and social change which can allow us to gain insight into Mildred and Andrew's relationship primarily through Mildred's perspective Futures. 

Mildred's narrative reveals, while in the sanatorium, instead of affectionate exchanges or deep emotional connections, her and Andrew’s dialogues predominantly revolve around Andrew posing business-related questions to Mildred. This one-sided dynamic leads Mildred to confess a profound sense of solitude within their relationship, saying "It's not that I'm tired of him. I'm tired of the person I've become around him" (Diaz, 369).

This emotional exhaustion also proves to be partially due to Mildred's struggle to conform to Andrew's expectations of a model wife while simultaneously being instrumental in running his business, without receiving due credit. The 1920s was an era of transformation, where the concept of the "New Woman" was emerging. Yet, traditional gender roles still persisted, dictating that women should excel in domestic roles while men acted as breadwinners and protectors. Andrew's expectations of Mildred, while reflective of societal norms, also underscored the tension arising from the clash between these expectations and her individual aspirations. While Mildred may have been content with her philanthropic work and charities, she was a strong and powerful woman and likely was not content with being in Andrew’s shadows, and likely also knew that to him she was only a way to further elevate his image. 

While it is plausible that Andrew harbored feelings for Mildred, we must question the authenticity of his love. His occasional gestures, like giving Mildred a golden bracelet, could be interpreted as tokens of affection. However, they may have served a dual purpose, as they showcased his power and wealth, adding complexity to his motivations. This brings into question the depth of his love for her and whether he valued her as an individual or primarily as an asset.

In summary, the portrayal of Mildred and Andrew's relationship in "Trust" captures the intricacies of love during a transformative period in American history. It highlights the conflict between societal expectations, gender roles, and individual desires, inviting readers to contemplate the depth of Andrew's affection and Mildred's struggle to reconcile her role within the constraints of her time. It underscores how societal norms, gender roles, and economic factors can impact love and relationships, and it raises interesting questions about the authenticity of their connection.

Trusting the Perspectives in Diaz's "Trust"

Throughout Diaz’s novel, Trust, we see the same series of events and storyline told from multiple perspectives. As a reader, every re-telling seemed to be more believable than the one preceding it, until details started to arise that contradicted other recounts. Only after all four perspectives had been shared did I start to create an opinion on what story I believed was the most accurate: a combination of Ida’s and Mildred’s perspectives. 

When we finally got Ida’s perspective, I began to get an idea of the real Bevel and who to trust in the novel. Ida is able to give us the most unfiltered view of who Bevel is. Of course, she’s writing this manuscript of Bevel for her job, but her story is the most believable because she doesn’t have anything to prove. Vanner was writing his novel to make a good story and gain reputation; Bevel wanted the manuscript written to make him look better than he was in order to counteract Vanner’s book; Ida gives us the outside perspective of who Bevel is and his motivations from a point of view that’s not Rask/Bevel. One of the biggest surprises from Ida’s perspective was the force at which Bevel tries to make Mildred into a passive figure and focus the story on only himself (which is an even bigger shock when we learn of Mildred’s influence in her perspective). When Ida provides suggestions on how to better “flesh-out” Bevel’s life or get more information about Mildred, Bevel disregards it as a “pointless exercise” and that Ida should write “decisive pages, not mush,” or that she should add a “feminine touch” (Diaz 267-268). This perspective of Bevel is driven by money and power, which he claims complete credit for, and is a mix of the first two Bevel’s that seems much more believable. 

Mildred’s perspective then is the most interesting because we discover that she is the main factor behind lots of Bevel’s success. In earlier recounts, Rask states that his ability to “fly blind during the times when the ticker was unable to keep up with the trading volume” (Diaz 149) is a pillar of his prophet-like reputation. Mildred, however, reveals that it was her who was acting as his pilot during these situations. When the ticker would fall behind, she would instruct Bevel on how to conduct the trades, making an “incalculable fortune” (Diaz 381). She even goes so far to say that “where there’s a ventriloquist, there’s a dummy” (Diz 382). It’s Mildred that was pulling the strings behind Bevel’s operation, and even while she’s in the hospital in Switzerland, we get stories of Bevel calling to ask for Mildred’s opinion and advice on what he should do. I believe her story and recollection of events because it fits with the information that Ida has found about Mildred through the documents. Their stories line up and have evidence, unlike Rask and Bevel’s. The documents that Ida finds describe Mildred’s financial statements of her charitable work being very organized and well-thought out. This would make sense because Mildred says that she was the one conducting business behind the scenes for Bevel all along. 

The difficult part about the novel, and honoring the title, is asking yourself the question: which story do I trust? Bias distorts the stories of Rask and Bevel through the first two perspectives, but Ida and Mildred’s perspectives seem clearer. Ida has nothing to prove to others, and the corroborating details from Mildred’s documents and perspective make their collective story the most trustworthy.  

Perceptions of Women in the Early 20th Century

 

Trust as a Mystery Novel

In novels like Trust, I often find myself having to actively analyze the characters to a much greater degree than other books. For most framed stories/stories with multiple perspectives, this is by design. Novels like Trust are non-linear in progression and told through different voices, all with their own motivations and perceptions of themselves and others. It ultimately lies on the reader to fit the fractured pieces of each character together, and to judge for themselves the accuracy of this virtual character living in their minds. But there exists no character in Trust in which this process provides more of a challenge than Mildred. The same confusion readers feel in regards to Mildred's identity is shared by, what I argue as, every character in the book. No one truly seems to know her and yet every character has spun their own rendition of her and proliferated such as reality. Living such a high profile life and simultaneously having her personality diminished by her husband, none in Diaz's novel can claim to have understood Mildred wholly. The way I see it, Mildred is the main character of Trust; the same way Ida is to her memoir and Rask is to "Bonds." But unlike traditional stories, the reader never "meets" Mildred, but rather various simulacra of her created by the characters. Trust, however unconventional, is a mystery novel at heart. Like the mystery novels enjoyed by Bevel’s rendition of Mildred, Trust requires that the reader not be passive while reading. The ultimate “goal” of the novel is to gain an understanding of its main character - to pick up the clues and red herrings littered throughout and to emerge with the fractured bits of Mildred’s reality intact.

Trust is composed of four parts, each a written work attributed to one of its characters. Vanner’s “Bonds” introduces Mildred as Helen Rask, the kind-hearted, music-loving wife to Benjamin Rask. Mildred, as perceived by Vanner, lived an unassuming life, married to a man she didn't care for and forced to provide her own entertainment. Bevel’s Mildred presents itself as a more promising “lead” in the mystery at hand, as she is not shadowed under the pretense of a fictional character. Ida’s memoir, however, serves to flesh Andrew Bevel out and thus brings into question the validity of Andrew’s rendition of his wife. Ida acts as the novel’s detective, being drawn to the mystery of Mildred and even finding connection in the way she’s overshadowed by the men in her life. “At first, Bonds was not just literature; it was evidence. And I was not just a reader; I was a detective” (Diaz, 245). Establishing herself as the audience surrogate in this mystery novel, readers place their trust in Ida as she reads between Bevel’s lines, snoops around the late wife’s corridors, and visits the museum’s archives many years later. Upon stealing the journal, Ida remarks “who knows Mildred better than I? Didn’t I forge her a past out of my own?” (Diaz, 357). It seems the reader will finally get their questions answered, and Ida will be there to tape the pieces together for us. 

Where most mystery novels hand the bone to the detective and reward the reader with the dazzling reveal (which the reader may or may not have put any work into), Trust abruptly ends Ida’s narrative as she begins to read Mildred’s journal. The reader, who has actively picked up the pieces of Mildred’s psyche, must read her own words for the first time and solve the mystery without the help of the detective Ida. Some may want the answers handed to them like in other detective novels but Diaz doesn’t comply, and for one simple reason: for Ida to solve the mystery of Mildred’s identity and present it to the reader is for Mildred’s truth to be warped once again by another character.

The Quiet Surrounding Power

     In Hernan Diaz’ Trust, the implications and responsibilities that accompany power and authority is held as a central idea throughout the novel. 

Authority is demonstrated as a great silencer of those who don’t have it. Ida makes the observation that “the closer one is to a source of power, the quieter it gets” (232), meaning that those in positions of authority hold faculty over those who don’t, and often use this to their greatest advantage. Individuals who don’t hold power tend to be scared into silence, and their autonomy is left at the hands of those who hold authority over them. This involuntary disposal of autonomy is presented in the quote “silence between two is always shared. But one of the two owns it and shares it with the other.”

This silencing type of authority comes in many forms. While Andrew Bevel’s authority comes from his status, accrued wealth, and investing; other characters in the book hold authority due to systemic factors like gender. Ida is often undermined by her father, who refuses to do any sort of housework and leaves her with the burden of domestic tasks (230). Benjamin Rask takes it upon himself to dictate the mental healthcare Helen receives, going so far as to ignore her wishes at one point, eventually leading to her demise. Andrew Bevel insists on including a “watered down” version of Mildred in his memoir (300). As shown by the preceding examples, these power dynamics are visible even in situations where characters should (in theory) have more equality, such as the relationship between husband and wife. It is shown throughout the novel that those who have authority will use it to their full advantage, even when they have the option not to. In this way, these power dynamics contribute to a vicious cycle of oppression, as nobody is willing to relinquish their power, and those with no power remain this way. 

While different characters in the novel search for various ways of undermining authority, this only works up to a certain point. Due to the fact that individuals in positions of authority have the ability to control those around them, this also implies that they have the means to control their own narrative. Andrew Bevel is the best example of this misuse of power, as he states “If I’m ever wrong, I must make use of all my means and resources to bend and align reality according to my mistake so that it ceases to be a mistake.” In this way, those in positions of power not only have autonomy over those around them, but also over reality itself.

Men in Trust: Parallels between Mr. Partenza and Andrew Bevel

 The parallels between Ida Partenza’s father, Mr. Partenza and Andrew Bevel brought to light the domineering role of men created by Hernan Diaz in Trust. This conclusion was formed thanks to Ida Partenza’s tendency to see herself in the character, Helen (248), who is Vanner’s rendition of Mildred Bevel. And using the “bluster and pride” (270) borrowed from her father, she created a version of Bevel using her father.

First, before any proof of distinct parallels between the two characters are dissected, Mr. Partenza and Andrew Bevel should be judged separately with the purpose of understanding their roles in the story. Beginning with Bevel’s role in Trust, Diaz creates an apathetic and wealthy protagonist for the readers. Harold Vanner describes Bevel through Benjamin’s character as a man who from past to present had only “just one substantial difference between his former self and who he had become” (124), which seems to only paint Bevel’s character as tasteless. Alternatively, Bevel had seen in himself an identity superior to the government and common-folk as he critiques those who try to gain control of the economy, yet victimizes himself as one of those “legitimate investors” (181). Ida Partenza supports this in her account of the man who had convinced “me [her] of his superiority” (283). On the other hand, Mr. Partenza lives frugally with the “little money” he would make as a hand typesetter. His character could be juxtaposed with Bevel for being an anarchist who, unlike the self-assured financialist, was jealous of those similar to him that “achieved… prominence” (206). The differences between Bevel and Partenza couldn’t be more obvious. One was a white American financialist who had been rich since birth, the other was an Italian anarchist “caught between the country he had left and resented and the land that had taken him in without fully accepting him” (209). Nevertheless, their similarities as Diaz scripts men in Trust, couldn’t have been more prominent.

Both Bevel and Partenza embrace their opinions about their role in the world, which paint Diaz’s self-depiction of men in Trust. Ida Partenza compares Bevel’s statement that his job “is about being right”(266) to the same force of personality she faced at home with her father who believed he was “supposed to be right” (273) in their everyday interactions. Additionally, Bevel and Partenza critique the world’s compliance to a fiction: Partenza believing money is fiction and that “finance capital is the fiction of a fiction” (216) while Bevel grows angry that Vanner’s novel about his life has a  “stronger presence in the real world” (237) than the truth.

Diaz’s representation of men as conservatives in the light of women is also seen through Bevel and Partenza’s treatment of women in Trust. Ida Partenza notes that her father had “never done any household chores” (230) seen it that it is traditionally a woman’s role to do so, and although she knew he loved her mother, he’d never cleared her mother’s belonging after her death not because of his “inability to ‘let go’” (231), but because it had “never occurred to him to clean them out”. In the alternative, Andrew Bevel declares in his auto-biography that women should not be involved in the affairs of financialists. Primarily when highlighting the rise of women investors from 1.5 to 40 percent in a decade, Bevel stated, “could there have been a clearer indicator of the disaster to come” (182)? Bevel is often shadowed as a man diminishing of women and Ida Partenza remarks he had diminished his wife to be “just like the wives in the autobiographies of the Great Men” (300) and as such, “put her in her place”. Ida Partenza compares Bevel to Vanner, a writer who she believed had also put a woman “in her place”, and Diaz presented a likeness in men in his novel when he reveals Ida Partenza’s father disapproved of her secretarial position. Mr. Partenza believed that the occupation was “another knot in the millenary subjection of women to the rule of men” (210), acknowledging the imbalance between genders in the workforce, but ultimately doing the same as the other two men, putting his daughter, Ida, in her place.

History Is Written By The Victors

     In Hernan Diaz’s Trust, the old adage that history is written by the victors rings true. Those in power have the means to make their version of a story known, manipulating reality in the process. Others are left to the mercy of the writer, powerless to change this new history’s depiction of them. Andrew Bevel and Mildred Bevel are two such characters; the former ensuring that a proper history of himself has been recorded, and the latter left vulnerable to her husband’s ideas about “proper history.”

    Ida Partenza’s work with Mr. Bevel shines light on the financier’s need to control his image. He makes clear to her that he will not tolerate slander and has the means to clear his name from accusation. Disgusted with his portrayal in Harold Vanner’s Bonds, Andrew used his resources to remove the book from public access completely. He says, “‘I will buy every single copy of every print run. And pulp them all’” (287). Many could threaten such action, but Bevel has the power and money to execute his plans for censorship. He hires lawyers, amasses a stake in a publishing house, and buys all of Vanner’s books in circulation simply to ensure that his reputation is not sullied. Diaz makes clear that history is shaped by those with the means to bend it to their will, and this is exactly what Bevel did. 

    While planning his own memoir, Andrew is also careful to mold exactly the version of his wife that he sees fit for public consumption. He desires for her to be seen as the perfect housewife, content and charming but never particularly curious or influential. When Ida writes about Mildred’s interest in modern artists, Bevel immediately crosses out the information, saying “‘Keep it simple. Make her love of the arts approachable for the common reader’” (286). He of course takes away her individuality in making this choice so that she is seen only as a surface-level admirer of music. Because Mildred had long passed and lacked the power that her husband so forcefully wielded, she had no say in Bevel’s portrayal of her and could not verbally attest to its veracity. However, Andrew’s desire “to convey Mildred’s lovely softness with a bit more emphasis” causes Ida to question the wife’s true depth of character, leading her on a document search many years later (286). Within Mildred’s engagement books, Ida finds documentation of meetings and recitals with many renowned musicians that indicate a much higher degree of social influence than Andrew alluded to. Not only this, but Partenza finds news clippings of current events, suggesting an interest in politics and hunger for knowledge completely absent in Bevel’s account of his wife. Andrew was well aware that his memoir’s version of Mildred was submissive and thoroughly complimented his view of himself as a savior of the American economy. Had Mildred been alive and available for interviews during Ida’s writing process, perhaps history would have been portrayed differently. 

Perspectives in Trust

     Perspective is a very prominent part of Trust, given that we read through four different narratives in the book. While each new author sheds light on their experience in the circle of Andrew Bevel, I particularly enjoyed it when each author recounted the same event. My favorite example of this is when each author describes the time of Mildred’s hospital stay. 

Initially, we read through Venner’s rendition of the story. We find Dr. Aftus assuring Helen she would be okay after a difficult and painful stay at the hospital.  Presumably, Helen still thinks there is hope although her mental condition is steadily declining and she is often silent. Next, we read Andrew’s version of events. Andrew tells us that Mildred had died of cancer after a comparatively peaceful hospital visit. Because Andrew repeatedly fabricates his life to Ida, I wondered if Mildred died of cancer or something in between cancer and Venner’s diagnosis. Surprisingly, Mildred does end up having cancer, although her version of events is different from Andrews. She writes, “My cancer diagnosis, according to which I’d be dead not too long after that.” (Diaz, p. 396). Soon after this, Mildred claims that she is the one to tell Andrew about her diagnosis. On the other hand, Andrew states his doctor told him before Mildred knew. I also found it notable how Andrew claims his leaving for Zurich at the time of Mildred’s death was “the only time I left her side” (Diaz, p. 171). We find from Mildred’s diary that Andrew often left for Zurich during their stay at the hospital. These inconsistencies between stories made me want to reread parts of the book, as it added a new element to look for while reading. 

Because of Venner and Andrews's dishonesty, I wanted to get closer to the “truth” of what happened to Mildred as I was reading. Of course, even her diary translation had some difficulty. According to Ida, “It will take days…if I can ever make out the contents at all” (Diaz, p. 356). While it is still a mystery whether some of Mildred’s writing got lost in translation, her perspective is a captivating ending to Trust.

Diaz, H. (2022). Trust. Riverhead Books.

The Power of Perception

As said in class “Life is a lot about how you are perceived, as well as how you perceive things.” In Diaz’s book Trust, perception is very important, quite possibly the most important aspect of the book. This concept is realized by Andrew Bevel, as he tries to take accounts into his own hands and combat the many perceptions of himself and his wife. He understands the fact that the power of perception is real. 

First, the perception of Bevel. In part one, the novel by Harold Vanner, titled Bonds, Andrew Bevel is depicted as a character named Benjamin Rask. Benjamin Rask is depicted as a very introverted man, who is infatuated with the process of earning money, yet does nothing with his earnings. He is depicted as a man who did not care for the economy and the good of the rest of the people. To Andrew Bevel, this view of him was very wrong in many ways. For this reason, he decided to write and show his life through his eyes. In doing this, Bevel is perceived as a more social man. While he may be in love with earning money, he is not one to just let it sit, rather he is very philanthropic and uses his earnings for the good of the world. In another perception, Ida Partenza seems to believe that Bevel is the man who he says he was and that even though he may seem like he’s only in the business for money, that he is for the good in the world. Talking about Bevel, she says, “While geared toward profit, his actions had invariably had the nation’s best interest at heart” (Diaz, 275).  All of the perceptions of Bevel are quite different, creating a struggle as to who should be believed and which perception is true.

The other perception that is important is the perception of Mildred Bevel. In the novel by Vanner, Mildred is a character named Helen. This character is very smart and good in many ways, but she becomes mentally insane and eventually dies due to her insanity. Andrew Bevel is very much against this, and a large purpose of his personal story is about trying to make a better picture of Mildred. He purposely leaves out many details about her and describes her as simple, kind, cute, etc. as an attempt to give her a good, simple identity. This is again contradicted when Ida Partenza shares her readings of Mildred’s diary. She even says that it does not compare to what Vanner or Bevel say about her, that she is finally seeing the true Mildred. 

In the end, this book is largely about the struggle of perception. People perceive things in different ways, therefore, people are perceived in different ways. Bevel realizes that perception can do a lot to one’s reputation, saying, “I most emphatically do not want more perspectives, more opinions” (Diaz 279). Regardless of what he says, a question needs to be asked. Whose point-of-view is actually truthful? This question brings to light the main concept, the power of perception. 

How do the stories interlock and unfold to create the novel? How successful was this structure? What does it mean for the structure to “succeed”? Does it take you long to understand how the stories interlock? Of the stories told by Harold Venner, Andrew Bevel, Ida Partenza, and Mildred Bevel, whose do you most trust and why?

 As the reader progresses through the novel, they are presented with different perspectives on the same events. This allows the reader to see how truth can be constructed and manipulated, and how history can be written and rewritten.

    The stories in Trust interlock and unfold in a complex and non-linear way. The novel begins with Harold Venner's fictionalized account of Andrew Bevel's life, which is followed by Bevel's own memoir, then Ida Partenza's biography of Mildred Bevel, and finally Mildred's diary. For example, in Venner's novel, Andrew Bevel is portrayed as a ruthless capitalist who will do anything to make money. “Authority and money surround themselves with silence, and one can measure the reach of someone’s influence by the thickness of the hush enveloping them” (Diaz 232).  However, in his own memoir, he presents himself as a more sympathetic character. Bevel claims that he was only motivated by a desire to provide for his family.Partenza's biography of Mildred challenges Andrew Bevel's own account of his life. She argues that Bevel was a much more complex and conflicted figure than he portrays himself to be. Finally, Mildred's diary provides the most intimate perspective on the events of the novel. However, it is important to note that Mildred is writing her diary after the events have taken place, and her memory is not always reliable, “she was unable to stop thinking about her thoughts” (Diaz 85).

    As discussed in class, one example of how the stories interlock is the recurring image of the scar on Bevel's face; this scar is mentioned in Venner's novel, Bevel's memoir, Partenza's biography, and Mildred's diary. This clue helped me identify the different stories as being part of the same narrative. Another example is the way in which the different narrators contradict each other on key details. For example, Venner claims that Bevel was born into a poor family, while Bevel himself claims that he came from a wealthy background. Partenza argues that Bevel was a brilliant financier, while Mildred suggests that he was more lucky than skilled. These contradictions question the reliability of each narrator. They also suggest that the truth of Bevel's story may be more complex than any single narrator can tell.

    For a novel's structure to succeed, it must be able to engage the reader and keep them wanting to read more. It must also be able to support the novel's themes and message. The structure of Trust is successful in a number of ways. First, it creates a sense of suspense and mystery. The class was constantly trying to piece together the truth of what happened, and to figure out which narrator is the most reliable. For example, in the early chapters of the novel, I was inclined to trust Venner's account of Bevel's life. However, as the novel progressed, I began to question Venner's reliability. This is due in part to the fact that Venner is a fictional character, and in part to the fact that Venner's account is contradicted by the other narrators. Second, the structure allows the author to explore complex themes such as power, truth, and the nature of reality. By presenting the story from different perspectives, the author is able to show how these themes are contested and negotiated. For example, the novel explores the relationship between power and truth. It shows how powerful people can use their power to control the narrative and to shape the public's understanding of reality. Third, the structure allows the author to challenge my expectations. I constantly questioned my own assumptions about truth and reliability. For example, the novel challenges that there is a single, objective truth. It shows how truth is constructed and manipulated, and how it can vary depending on one's perspective. The structure of Trust is successful in both of these ways. It engages the reader by creating a sense of suspense and mystery. It also supports the novel's themes by showing how truth is constructed and manipulated 

The Truth of Andrew Bevel and His Fortune

Throughout the novel Trust by Hernan Diaz, Andrew Bevel's true self is scattered between multiple stories and recounts of his life by multiple authors and point of views. In the first book, Bonds, by Harold Vanner, Bevel, or in this story "Rask," is a genius in the stock market. He doesn't have much of a personality outside of being good at trading. He was portrayed in a sense as a "robot" having no other interests other than the stock market and being exceptionally good at it. But Andrew Bevel is portrayed to have no interest in the money at all. He trades because he enjoys it. The numbers are a game for him, The end is not important to him, the only important thing is "winning." To other's around him he was a genius, someone untouchable. No one could compete with is trades and no one understood the market like he did.

In Ida Partenza's point of view, Bevel is given much more personality. We see that he is not the stone cold person he is shown to be by Vanner. Bevel was shown to be much more vain. He cared what people thought and that was why he hired Partenza to write an autobiography pretending to be him. He did this to fight the beliefs that Vanner's account did. He did not like how he and his wife, Mildred, where portrayed. But in her retelling, Bevel is shown to be a man that needs control, he is not a carefree man who only enjoys trading, but instead, he is shown to be a selfish man who wants control. He seems to only care to make himself look good. Most notably, Bevel controls exactly what Partnza puts into the book and shapes the people, mostly his wife, to how he thinks the public should view them. He also talks highly of his wife and wants everyone to know how amazing she was, but when Partenza asks for examples of her fraility and kindness he says, "Oh, I think you'd do a much better job"(286). Showing that he has no interest in it whatsoever. It makes his claims seem ignorant and untrue. Like he actually doesn't know of any times, he is just saying it to make her look good, and in turn, make him look good for talking highly of her.

This all comes crashing down in the retelling of the story by his wife, Mildred Bevel. The grand reveal at the end of the book shows that Mildred was the mastermind behind Bevel's success in trading. Constantly throughout Mildred's journal, Bevel calls her and asks for his input in the deals he is making and follows her directions. This is completely different than how he wanted her to be shown in his autobiography. He showed himself having all the knowledge and power. She states, "I made him a new sketch for his volume. And it worked"(380). It was known in the first book that Bevel just enjoyed the game of finances, but Mildred believed the opposite. She said that she enjoyed the process of gaining the money, while Bevel was only interested in results.

Mildred being the mastermind makes sense as Vanner's account states that he lost "his touch" after Mildred died. His touch was indeed Mildred who encouraged each of Bevel's investments and oversaw his portfolio. They were a team and Mildred was the brain behind the financial success. Bevel was a fraud, his fortune was not gained all by his own knowledge. His wife, Mildred earned the fortune, but Bevel would never let the world know that.

Into the Mildred-Verse

 From the personification of a “fated heroine” (300), to an unprovocative trophy wife, to the questioning of those two constructed narratives, as a reader, one trusts that by the end of the novel, the truest version of Mildred Bevel will rise. 

As a reader, one is first introduced to Helen alias Mildred in the fictionalized account of the Bevels’ life. Bonds, the novel within a novel, has the mission to convey an appealing narrative for the masses, and at the time of its publication during the Great Depression, the societal consensus was to look for culprits in characters of great wealth, and what better symbol for wealth’s omnipotence than the Bevels. Therefore, to depict the wealthiest man as also the most out-of-touch, Vanner relied heavily on the distortion of Mildred into Helen in various aspects, but more specifically in her death. Instead of recounting her death as being the cause of cancer, he attributes her tragic demise to her insanity, where Vanner “broke her mind and her body simply because it made for a better story” (300), allowing the reader to cast blame towards Bevel’s arrogance and peculiarities, shaping him into the “villain” and Mildred into victim.

To debunk the version of his life as told by Vanner and construct a well-deemed legacy, Bevel decides to take a “shot” in storytelling. In his unfinished manuscript, Helen is distorted into Mrs. Bevel, a submissive, childlike, and predictable companion. The version, as told by Vanner, of someone with great intellect is reduced to a fragile muse with the “innocent yet profound wisdom of those who, like young children or the elderly, are close to the edges of existence” (157). The constant comparison to childlike characteristics and remarks that potentiate the secondary role of women, such as “saved me by making a home for me” (158), are Bevel’s attempts to shift and counterattack the focus given to Mildred in Vanner’s novel to him and his greatness.

The lack of trace of Mildred makes it hard for her to be appreciated for her truth, yet along comes Ida, Bevel’s ghost writer. Through her nonconformity and the slow unraveling of forgotten documents, she questioned Bevel and Vanner’s narratives. When inspecting her room, she recognized a “modern, austerely avant-garde atmosphere” (329), showing her independent boundary-breaking spirit. Ida realizes how Mildred’s genius was silenced through the manipulation of storytelling, which makes the discovery of her diary more satisfactory.

Alas comes Midred’s turn as storyteller and our turn as readers to “listen.” Unlike the other narrations, her’s is short and unthreaded, with the acknowledgment that “a bell in a bell jar won’t ring” (402), which is her way of saying that once in a coffin, there is no voice to produce. Yet, she took this realization to heart and exposed her feelings and truths within the days she had left, introducing the reader to the real Mildred, a bold, revolutionary, altruistic woman whose internal force was too much for the fragile-ego, power-thirsty men around her to accept.

Mildred Bevel - Putting her in her place

Trust was an interesting novel because it allowed us to explore the characters from different points of view. To me, the most interesting character in this book was Mildred Bevel. 

The narrative of Mildred’s character from My Life by Andrew Bevel portrays Mildred as the perfect wife and woman. She was focused on philanthropy and music and was filled with warmth and kindness. This autobiography by Bevel gave a superficial insight into Mildred’s life. It harped on the fact that she was an average sickly woman - “In her husband’s condescending characterization Mildred was an endearing dilettante who enjoyed music as other women enjoy crocheting or collecting brooches.” (Diaz, 297) 

In Bond by Harold Vanner, Helen was depicted as a gifted woman with a penchant for languages, music, and books. She was similar to Mildred in that they had little social interaction except with musicians and artists. However, Helen's life had a drastic ending compared to Mildred’s.

After reading the extracts from Mildred’s journal, it is obvious that these two portrayals of her were not accurate and it leads to the question of why these men chose to portray her this way, especially Bevel. This question is answered by Ida when she says, “But reading these pages, it seems that more than vindicating Mildred he wanted to turn her into a completely unremarkable, safe character - just like the wives in the autobiographies of the Great Men I read …. Put her in her place.” (Diaz, 300) 

I agree with this statement because, throughout this book, Bevel came across as someone who could not share the spotlight. I think this stemmed in part from his upbringing. After his father died, his mother was solely focused on him. Even when his mother died, because of his reputable name, he was still looked up to and respected by many. Because of this, Bevel could not imagine the attention and respect being shifted to someone else, especially not a woman. We see this in the contempt he had for women getting in on the market. (Diaz, 182) This was ironic seeing as his successful business decisions were decided by Mildred.  

In Vanner’s Bond, Helen’s mind breaking and her death was his attempt to also put her in her place. Her madness started because “she was unable to stop thinking about her thoughts” (Diaz, 85) and to me this made it seem like Vanner was trying to say that she was too smart for her own good. Also, this whole situation started because she had decided to punish herself for her husband’s actions. This was interesting to me because Benjamin was not punishing himself for what he did. 

These two accounts and the way they treated the versions of Mildred portrayed how men thought in those times. We further see this in Ida’s relationship with her father and the type of roles he expects her to play in their household. From this book, we see that men expected women to be at home and have hobbies but not participate in activities affecting the economy. A clear example of this is when Mildred wrote “He felt unmanned, he once said” (Diaz, 386)  in reference to Bevel talking about taking her advice on the stock market. Almost a century later, this sentiment towards women has changed and women are now working all kinds of jobs. However, there is still much improvement to be made in regard to how women are viewed in society.

Narration and its Effect on Truth

  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.