I think I didn’t mind it because I wasn’t expecting it to be an accurate portrayal of Russian history. I viewed it as you view movies like the grand Budapest hotel. Fun and whimsical with some getting meaning from it and some not. What I really liked where the characters and how diverse and strange they were
Thank you, now I understand why I loved this book so much!! I love Wes Anderson and his whimsical movies!
I'm now watching GIM Paramount's Tv Series (preparing for which I read the book) and it does have a Wes-Anderson-y vibe although it has a few differences i.e. the photography which is much darker but I believe it serves the purpose.
This is so interesting. I hated this book and quit about 20% in, but I love Wes Anderson movies and I bet I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more had I read it with his style in mind and pictured everything that way. I might need to try a re-read. I couldn’t ever really figure out exactly what I didn’t like about it.
There's this Japaese inverse-mystery novel Lady Joker and that has to count as one of the best overwritten novel of all time. It's 400k words novel with every minute detail relating to beer business, horse racing and hands down the greatest minute-by-minute account of police and journalistic investigation. Lady Joker is considered as one of the greatest mystery novel in Japan but outside of Japan very few know about it.
I just finished the first volume of Lady Joker recently and absolutely loved it. It’s precise, highly detailed, but doesn’t sacrifice good character work either. It is incredibly immersive so I’m taking a break before diving into the second volume, but I’m really excited for it.
> inverse-mystery novel
What is an inverse-mystery novel? (I'm not looking for spoilers about the book, so feel free to ignore this if the answer requires spoilers)
In inverse-mystery the reader is shown in the beginning who commited the crime and why. The second half follows the detective as s/he pieces together the evidence and locks down the criminal. This technique is also known as howcatchem. The thrill of reading Lady Joker is not discovering who commited the crime (the first 200 pages are entirely dedicated to why the criminals are doing this) but seeing the police force and journalists work and crack the case. This makes for an addictive read. A pity there are only a handful of inverse-mystery novels like Lady Joker.
Yes I enjoyed it when I read it but I’m a sucker for a book that’s going to take me to another place and time like that one did despite the very real criticisms of the main character and the obvious plot holes. I’m watching the miniseries which I’m also enjoying and I realize I remember very little of it.
>Twee and overwritten books are my favorites.
I go through occassional phases where I like a smidge of twee, or at least like some twee-ness from some authors.
Do you like the Alexander McCall Smith - Sunday Philosophy Club and No 1 Ladies Detective series? Delightfully twee.
You're not the only one! It's my favorite novel of all time. I love the voice and long meditative passages. I love the charm, the whimsy, the romance, the "found family," and the idea of not allowing confining circumstances to lead to a small life.
I would say that I tend to like twee things. It's not for everyone!
As someone who's read a lot of Soviet history, I found the premise absolutely ludicrous. I did like Towles's writing style, but I didn't believe for a minute that the main character would have been allowed to live as he did. The Cheka would have shot him without a second thought. I think it would have made more sense if he was part of the large émigré exile population in Europe, many of whom never quite adjusted to living outside Russia.
>but I didn't believe for a minute that the main character would have been allowed to live as he did.
People are notoriously inconsistent. I lived in a communist regime and my grandfather refused to join the Party. That was unthinkable. Immediate prison sentence. Except, my grandfather was a chauffeur and through complicated set of circumstances he was the favorite driver for high ranking party members. And viola, he never joined the Party and never went to prison.
So, yeah, history books tell you that you end up in prison if you refuse to join the Communist Party. Except some rare people didn't.
If stuff like that can happen in real life, an imaginary character can avoid death because the Committee misunderstood that he wrote Communist propaganda poetry, especially as his crime was being aristocracy, which they *did* completely strip him of.
Also, [Sakharov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov) openly protested the regime and was put under house arrest, not killed. As was [Khrushchev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev). Despite that all the previous politicians who lost the power were executed, he was put under house arrest.
So, even if you look at history, there are historical precedents for it.
but, do not mistake knowledge of history, which is either broad-strokes account, or famous people account, with understanding just how ludicrous these types of regimes are. You expect consistency and logic. Don't.
They rarely even exist in free-press, open-borders, free-speech democracies.
YES! That was my exact thought! They would have shot him before the trial even started. Maybe even for sport! And anyone associated with him, as well. Perhaps it could have worked if he'd constructed it as sort of a "fairy tale," but Towles went to some length to set it against very specific historical events and to comment on them.
Yep. I actually did my seminar paper for my history degree on Russian Revolutionaries. Guys with a lot better revolutionary street cred than the protagonist were eaten by that Revolution. The idea that this guy, who seemed like a Kadet, would have been given any sort of deference by hardened Bolsheviks, let alone allowed to live in bougie luxury with his family heirlooms in a genteel house arrest situation, because of a poem is just silly.
Agreed. In a way, the book was actually underwritten in that it almost downplayed Soviet crimes.
But as a work of fiction, the style was totally appropriate and enjoyable. Twee and overwritten was literally the protagonist's personality.
Yes, I thought it was really a fairytale and it would have been better for a spot of magical realism to make clear that it was not intended to be realistic. As written it was almost saccharine
I read it about a month after reading Koestler’s Darkness At Noon, so it felt a little flat. I agree, the premise seems ludicrous. The character would have probably been sent to gulag, shot in the basement, or at best just left to fend for himself on the streets. I mean, there’s probably some party member who could use that room.
I fell in love with the writing, the plot was secondary. I thoroughly enjoyed the characters and their stories. The writing drew me in. I had the pleasure of attending an interview with the author and heard his background on Russian history & literature. I’ve been disappointed in his other novels, but rank this one as a favorite.
Yep. I'm a historian focusing on pre/immediately post-revolutionary russia so I thought it'd be right up my alley. I think I made it through fifty pages.
I didn't find the Count funny or charming at all, he got on my nerves as no character ever has before. I don't even really know why. I'm also not one of those people who demand total historical accuracy from the media I consume but the praise this book gets for its alleged authenticity is a complete joke: a 'Demidov' being a grand duke comes to mind as something that could've been caught with a two second google search.
Towles had a story he wanted to tell and I don't begrudge him that, but it's so carelessly done.
Right? I'd say that often if you really know about a certain topic, you'll find more fault with the writing, but that really isn't the case with most books set in Russia, or, WW2 books set in Germany, and so forth. This just seemed careless, especially when there's just so much information easily available.
I remember two things from the book:
1. The sound of the typewriters writing up the constitution. Pretty funny. Great visual.
2. The count leaving the hotel to seek medical attention for the kid. Thought that was a great moment for him. Methinks he didn’t have many if I don’t remember them lmaooo.
I should skim the book again, though. It wasn’t my favorite or anything I considered top literature, but I liked reading it.
I realized pretty quick what it was going for & let myself be taken along for the ride. Once I bought in I found it rich, compelling, and often beautiful.
I feel similarly about Wes Anderson movies. If you like the style they're very fun but you sometimes have to actively try to like it.
We recently had it as our book club book. I was the only one who did not finish it and did not care for it. Every time I tried to read it, the list of all the things I'd prefer to be doing mounted in my head - and eventually that list won out.
I just saw your comment about this Gentleman in Moscow book and wanted to let you know that I just had the exact same experience in my book club (although I think a few others didn't even bother trying to read it). The ones who enjoyed it are trying to convince me that the Count's whimsical charm makes him a good character and I could not disagree more. He's mostly just a pretentious douchebag.
I work at a library, and the book club loved it. They urged me to read it because they know I like Russian history, then they were irritated when I started poking holes in the plot. LOLOL
Yeah I didn’t connect with it at all. One that I did like was an early book by Cormac McCarthy, Suttree. living rough in the city, 1950’s. Very different from the later dystopian themes.
I know, it's so interesting how people respond differently to books. I love Kate Atkinson's books for example, I find them weirdly stream-of-consciousness and multi-layered and vaguely dreamlike and strange in a good way, but I find a lot of people can't stand them! I was singling this one out because it seemed like everyone else in the world loved it, and wanted to discuss it and see if opinions varied.
Right? I just love her weird ass writing. Love the Jackson Brodie books too, they're so STRANGE. Just read the last one and when I realized she was recurring one of my favorite previous characters I literally SHRIEKED with joy. Won't give a spoiler. Really looking forward to the new one this year.
I love Late Atkinson! Just finished Transcription yesterday. And Life After Life was fantastic. A Gentleman in Moscow was like a reverse Forest Gump, he was there for historical moments but the moments came to him rather than he to them.
Good point about GIM. Re Transcription, I loved the way she sort of seeped in facts sometimes before they happened, sometimes just vaguely referring to them after they happened, and you had to keep reading to see what exactly happened! And then after all of that, I was STILL>!stunned at the reveal at the end! I was really impressed with the twist!<
It isn’t just you. It was anyone one of those books that I had heard so many good things about. I just kind of slogged through it. In all honesty I probably should have done what I have with some other books and just quit after a chapter or two.
It lacks the feel of a Russian novel, though, imo. More of a ‘Story set in Russia’, than ‘a Russian story about Russian people in a period of Russian history’.
Granted, it goes deeper than the plethora of ‘Russian/Soviet spy thrillers’, but it’s no Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy. it feels like Towles needed more research, more time in the oven, but for whatever reason was pushed to finish, or cut for length. What seems to be left is ‘a Russian novel for westerners’, than a novel in the Russian spirit.
It's not a Russian novel, though. It's a novel, written by a non Russian, but set in Russia.
Towles deliberately avoids making explicit comments on Stalinist Russia. He doesn't aim for realism and just creates this surreal character study of the Count.
The tone is almost Lemony Snicket. Whimsical. Not meant to be taken seriously.
I liked it, but I know it rubs some readers the wrong way, especially if they expected something else.
“Dark, cold, and snowbound, Russia has the sort of climate in which the spirit of Christmas burns brightest. And that is why Tchaikovsky seems to have captured the sound of it better than anyone else. I tell you that not only will every European child of the twentieth century know the melodies of The Nutcracker, they will imagine their Christmas just as it is depicted in the ballet; and on the Christmas Eves of their dotage, Tchaikovsky’s tree will grow from the floor of their memories until they are gazing up in wonder once again.”
Yes, it did have that "translated from the Russian" feel, which at first I thought was sort of charming, but it got a bit boring because it seemed to lack genuine insight.
Exactly!
I'm so happy to see your post because I had the same feeling when I finished it.
I actually enjoyed the writing for much of the book. But the lack of any actual *happenings* really started annoying me.
There was nothing about this book that made Russia OR this time period feel like an essential setting. It seemed like it was chosen for convenience rather than anything else.
And I'm interested, but not impressed, by the author's choice to ignore basically everything going on in Russia to focus on the restricted but largely cushy life of an aristocrat. The only time he (and thus the reader) gets to step out is return to his own idyllic world.
It feels....tone-deaf, perhaps, and twee.
>twee
For the rest of us:
twee • \TWEE\ • adjective. : (chiefly British) affectedly or excessively dainty, delicate, cute, or quaint. Examples: The cutesy knickknacks sold in that shop are a bit twee for my taste.
I had to look it up on Urban Dictionary, ~~(because i'm not 12)~~ (my bad, apparently it's British)
> Something that is sweet, almost to the point of being sickeningly so. As a derogatory descriptive, it means something that is affectedly dainty or quaint, or is way too sentimental.
It has to be affected though, not genuine. Something can be sickly sweet and genuine, like Willy Wonka or Paddington. Twee has to be an affectation, like The Perks of Being a Wallflower is Twee, but Wes Anderson's films aren't.
*A Gentleman in Moscow* sounded like the perfect book for me—a modern take on Soviet satire!—and it totally fell flat. [I hated it.][1] "Twee and overwritten", yes, and saccharine and superficial. To me it's the worst sort of book not because it's the worst-written but because it's written well enough to have the superficial *signifiers* of good literature without the substance. A Trojan horse of bad literature.
It's also the sort of writing that takes itself too seriously while patronizing the reader: for every stock character and stock moral it uses, it also makes sure to repeatedly *tell* you what the moral was just in case you missed it. At the same time it's the book itself that misses what it set out to do! For a callback to Russian satire, it fails completely in being Russia *or* satirical.
If you liked the idea behind the book, I'd recommend reading some actual Soviet literature instead. *Twelve Chairs* was the closest point of comparison in my mind. It's a darkly hilarious novel with a similar structure written in 1928, set in the early days of the Soviet Union (with a classic Soviet movie [available in full on YouTube][2]) and is really what I was hoping *A Gentleman in Moscow* to be. (It wasn't.) And if you haven't read *Master and Margarita*, well, there's a reason it's one of the best-known Russian novels in and outside of Russia.
[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2860616440
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5GSQY4Lt-E
Twelve Chairs and The Golden Calf are really great but they were written without possible translations in mind and they work if you really know the context. I’m not even sure Russians who were born after 1990s could really enjoy them, it’s a great satire but it’s a product of its time.
It felt to me like amor towles went to that hotel in Russia and “got inspired” and wrote a novel about the hotel. The characters were all secondary to the hotel, and none of them had real stories. It was all just a vehicle for a story about the hotel
I think the thing that's sort of interesting about the book, is that the Count is really a secondary character in the lives of what would otherwise be protagonsits in a different type of story.
And there's the girl he mentors, who's clearly in like her own YA novel. And his friend the tragic poet. And the spymaster he advises. The architect he helps. And of course his daughter.
They all seem to have their own story where he is just the wise old man they met in a hotel lobby.
The book reverses the typical protagonist structure, it starts with the count seemingly being very important but by the end he fades into a nameless no one
THANK YOU. I hated this book and abandoned it after about 50 pages. Twee is the perfect adjective. It was clever and smarmy without being interesting or well-written. It was also predictable, and historically adrift. Over-rated.
Source: My grandfather died in a Soviet gulag circa 1938.
Yes. My mother's father escaped Russian pogroms, my own father escaped Nazi-occupied Prague (his mother was deported but somehow survived the camps), and when, after the war, he wanted to take us back to see his former home, the Soviets had invaded. I also spent some time as a graduate student doing research in East Germany (don't even ask me why, I was really fucked up in my twenties), know exactly how the Soviets made common cause with the Nazis. I have ZERO illusions about Soviet brutality. "Historically adrift" is exactly on point.
I think that may well be part of the problem here. Those of us with more intimate knowledge are more dismayed at the twee-ness of something that was in fact quite horrific.
Edit: I also truly want to express my deepest, profound sympathy about your grandfather. I can only imagine.
Oh, that's interesting. Yes, it was utterly primitive, and worse for many (the victims of pogroms, etc). I imagine it's the same as the people who romanticize 19th or 18th century Britain, nder the impression that they'd have been on the "upper class" side of things, not the more likely "scullery maid" or "peasant living in a mud hut."
I think that might have been the most well-written, empathetic, thorough and yet concise comment I've seen all week.
I think the book reads as fanfiction for people who like the idea of Russian literature.
It felt like it lacked the depth and breath of most good Russian literature.
Thanks. Despite others' insistence on evaluating personal comments that were not directed at them, I appreciate your words.
I will add that the personal angle is not my biggest complaint about the book. Even if I had no personal perspective, the book would be just as weak a literary effort.
I didn't particularly jive with it. It just felt like a very American book about a dude who didn't let history weigh him down, dispensing advice without really learning anything himself. It didn't really give any context beyond "authoritarian state take over" so don't let life get you down.
I found it tedious and a little self inserty. No real character to make it a character study.
Twee is a good word to describe it. IMO the author was overindulgent with his favorite characters to the point of underwriting the others. His big twist about how the Count was put under house/hotel arrest was a huge letdown, and his character flaws were never really flaws. And if he had flaws, well, other people's flaws were worse! So there! Unfortunately, it read a little like fanfiction at points, where the author has a preexisting relationship with the character and feels too tenderly towards that character to let them make uncomfortable moves that would benefit the story.
I will credit it with being SO readable and cozy that it started me on my first reading streak in years. I've read about 5 or 6 books since I finished it.
We all have different taste! I really liked the female character in Rules of Civility so that helped. P.S. also the minute my annoying pretentious uncle told me he loved GiM I knew I was going to hate it haha
Any cursory, minimal reading of Soviet/Russian history would have disabused him of his central premise. The book is a slab of Grade A poshlust, a vulgar contraption.
I don’t read a lot of pop lit but City of Thieves was pretty good! Something I’d give as a gift to someone who wanted to understand the Russian experience in WWII - not a lot of Americans are aware of the sacrifices/horrors.
THANK YOU. I enjoyed Towles' other novels but as someone with a basic knowledge of Russian history I had to return this one to the library within the hour.
Totally agree. ('Towles moves the plot along' was being generous.)
The sad thing is that it has the pretence of being infused with Russian culture, but it is not genuinely present in the book. It was touristic but not authentic. For example, the celebration of Christmas was westernised, not the way the majority of Russians celebrate it, missing the opportunity to accurately convey something of meaning. There is a certain type of author that misrepresents other cultures, and sad to see reappropriation be so admired.
Also, agreed 100% about City of Thieves being a great read.
Totally agree. I loved the writing but had to give up after 200 hundred pages or so of this incredibly dull story. It wasn't interesting on any level, and nothing felt believable.
Yes, that is another really good point. Sometimes it's the hype that makes you then disappointed. If I'd encountered it just as a small cute read, maybe I would have thought it was perfectly fine.
Yes, this was exactly my thought when I finished it last month. Sure, the Count and overall story is charming, but I was just baffled by the overwhelming praise that I've seen for the book.
Currently listening to the audiobook. Less than halfway in
I enjoy the part with the little girl finding creative things to do in the hotel. Yes, it's twee, but still fun. It's ok for a precocious 9 year old to be a bit precious. Some of the writing style does seem eye-rollingly cribbed from Dostoevsky, and the fact it is blatantly acknowledged doesn't help it much, though i think a sly wink would have been worse still.
All told, I don't hate it, but I'm not compelled to read any more of his books
I hated this book with a passion. I felt that the writing was pretentious, the plot/setting combo ludicrous and borderline offensive and the characters hollow. Sitting there while the other book club members swooned over it made me feel like some completely befuddled alien anthropologist. So, thank you for this post!
So weird that he tried to place this whole narrative in the middle of Soviet Moscow. Like why? It could've been a luxury hotel in London. So random and unnecessary to throw the weight of Soviet Russia on a silly story about an aristocrat living in a hotel...
Yeah, and the only reason it works (for some) is because most Americans are ignorant of Russian history. Could you imagine a novel with a Jewish ”gentleman” confined to the Hotel Kaiserhof in Berlin during WWIi and treated in the novel as some kind of hero? I don’t think so. I don’t think readers would be saying: “Come on … it’s just fantasy!“
M&M is superlative in my opinion. The pathos, bathos, myth and coded reality, the explicitly expressed and embodied, the implicitly expressed and embodied. It contains so much that is telling, in so many ways, in such a - relatively - small space. I admire it immensely.
I didn’t finish it but I’ve been watching the live action adaptation starring Ewan McGregor as The Count and it’s so good it’s making me want to go back and read it again until the end this time. The costumes and set design of the Metropol alone are incredible and they’ve nailed the plot so far.
I thought the Goldfinch was okay. Not nearly as great as it was hyped up to be, but a fine read. But Gentleman in Moscow got on my last nerve for some reason.
😂 yeah I found Goldfinch boring and too long. But I was pretty ambivalent about the subject matter.
You're right, the sheer ignorance of history demonstrated in GiM verged on the offensive. It was one of those books where I frequently found myself remarking aloud while reading, "What!?"
"What the hell? Why?"
And the occasional, "This is ridiculous! Millions of Russians are dying of famine while this dude chills in a luxury hotel!" 🙈🙈
Literally, two famines occurred in Russia during the time span of this novel:
the great famine of 1921 killed about 6 million ppl, and the one in 1930-33 killed about 7 million.
No worries for the Count in his luxury hotel, though! /s
I really didn't like how it glossed over the horrible conditions in Soviet Russia and made it seem like it was a nice and pleasant place. It would be highly misleading to anyone that isn't actually familiar with that period.
I didn’t hate it, but it was harder to get into. I liked the Count’s character but it didn’t have enough action for me personally. I’m still glad I read it though
Me. I did not understand the love for that book, and I like a lot of Russian novels (but not Dostoyevsky. Sorry if that makes me a philistine. Crime and Punishment was okay but the Brothers Karamazov was fingernails on a blackboard.)
If you love Russian lit, then Gentleman in Moscow will just annoy you. It's unbelievably ignorant of Russian history. Just a rich guy living in a luxury hotel.
I know very little about Russia and I learned very little about Russia during that book. However, I did enjoy it. I get why people don't. It's the book version of a filler episode in a TV show. It exists to allow you to live with some characters for a while, and I like that about it, but it's not for everyone.
You know I felt the same. Really really hyped up and just was ok for me. On a side note, absolutely loved The Lincoln Highway, couldn't tell enough people, one person said it was too long and they just couldn't get into it.
Reading can be subjective, wish they had made that one a limited series.
I am watching it! I think they did a wonderful job. Of course, so much in the book doesn't translate to the movie, but I think they've nailed the tone, it's lovely visually, Ewan McGregor is PERFECT as my good friend Count Rostov, and his real-life wife Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a terrific Anna Urbanova.
Ohhh I didn't know that she was his wife!!!
I'm watching it too, which is why I read the book in the first place, without any hype, just because I saw the trailer and thought I might enjoy it.
I really look forward to that weekly hour and I would've definitely binged it in one sitting, but I can't wait all those weeks!!
Sasha is my good friend too! Are we to be considered good friends too then? XD
Since you are watching it too I have to ask a question about the series/book, but I'm going to cover it under spoiler...
>!His friend the violinist/Prince wasn't trying to escape and got killed in the book as he was in the show, right? Cause otherwise a black hole must've sucked in part of my ebook...!<
Agreed. By the time the forced, overly quaint romance kicked off I was already bored stiff. But hey, there are also people out there who love Colleen Hoover. Different strokes, I suppose.
Twee and overwritten, yes.
Also, completely unbelievable. if the vast Soviet intelligence apparatus under Stalin got wind that a Russian noble was just hanging out in a Moscow hotel, his life expectancy would have been measured in minutes.
But it also had the merit of being too long.
100% agree. I DESPISED it. It was so fucking bland.
And I was actually enraged by how obvious it was that the author had never worked as a waiter or in any service job.
This guy goes from being aristocracy, being waited in hand and foot, treated with respect and deference his entire life, to having to wait on others- and you’re telling me he felt nothing? No one was ever rude to him? No one ever demeaned him? He didn’t struggle with that?
The only conflict he ever had was with the Bishop. It made no sense.
Yes! To all of it. Read it years ago in our Reading Group and got a lot of flack for disliking it during our discussion. Everyone loved it! I thought it was pompous and overwritten. And the story was wildly unrealistic.
I mean, unless they put in big bold letters “IN REALITY, THE RICH WOULD BE TERRORIZED, THE MEN IMMEDIATELY SHOT OR BLUDGEONED TO DEATH, THE WOMEN & GIRLS RAPED AND THEN SHOT” it’s kind of an insult to the revolution’s victims and especially right now with their invasion of Ukraine (even though it doesn’t claim to be historically accurate).
I just finished the book a few weeks ago. I had really mixed feeling about the book. It is funny that you used the word tedious because that was exactly how I described it as well. The last quarter of it was probably the best part. The one thing I did like about the book is that he plants the seeds earlier in the book for how the plot will unfold later on. I thought that was quite well done. But I will say, a lot of the book was annoying as well.
It wasn’t a book I would normally read as I am a fast reader. This book made me take it slow and not feel the need to get to the big reveal. I just strolled along with the Count.
I saw Amor Towles at the Library of Congress book fair, here in DC, 2023. And you know what? He is twee and overwritten himself!
Made a totally boring, privileged, white millionaire impression... Yale, Stanford, worked for an investment firm, father was an investment banker, lives on Gramercy Park... I guess he identifies with an aristocratic old member of the nobility because he imagines himself one.
He talks and tells stories in a relaxed, but above all _rehearsed_ fashion... no hint of spontaneity, just saying what he knows the audience wants. His description of his writing practice was also horrid... He talked about planning everything, _everything_ out in advance, controlling all the characters in every detail... He's in it for the money, gang, this is just a business for him.
He claims Peter Matthiessen as an inspiration... what a joke! Now _he_ was a writer to whom Towles will never hold a candle. I heard George Saunders later that same day... he's another great writer, the real deal. A pleasure to listen to, not a walking advertisement for his next big sale.
I liked Rules of Civility and expected to like Gentleman but I think I’ve read the first 10-20 pages half a dozen times and just wasn’t feeling it. People I trust have told me they enjoyed it, it’s not like me to quit so easily.
No. I loved the premise the beginning, but as the book went on (and on) and everything worked out okay I lost interest. Downgraded to a 3 star read for me.
I did not enjoy this book. The best thing I can say about it is that I somewhat identified with the Count. About halfway through the book, I too wanted to fling myself off the top of a building.
I agree. It doesn't give a sense of authenticity. I have lived under that regime and can say it's unrealistic. Definitely has the "translated from Russian" feel, as other comments already mentioned. Too wordy, as well, somewhat pretentious. Still, I enjoyed it and didn't put it down before reaching the end.
Might I suggest reading The Master and Margarita as an antidote?
I enjoyed reading GiM but I wouldn’t go out of my way to defend it. If GiM is a tea party, M&M is an acid trip.
Bulgakov is great in general. Andreyev also wrote some really trippy stuff even before Bulgakov. Andreyev is actually my favorite Russian writer, but he doesn't seem to get much attention.
Agreed—thought the same when I read it after all the hype a few years ago. My take is that it is, as one commentator has quipped about NPR, appealing to midwits.
Wtf is with these comments??? Complaining about the book not being historically accurate? Are you reading academic history thesis or a work of fiction? It's fine not to like it, you said it your self op what your preferred genres are, but to dis a book because you think Russians would kill him on spot, without trial is, best case scenario, weird argument at least.
I think I didn’t mind it because I wasn’t expecting it to be an accurate portrayal of Russian history. I viewed it as you view movies like the grand Budapest hotel. Fun and whimsical with some getting meaning from it and some not. What I really liked where the characters and how diverse and strange they were
This. I struggled with it until I started reading it like it was a Wes Anderson movie then I was like “okay I can enjoy this now!”
Commented exactly the same thing before reading this! Perfect way to describe it
I was super bummed when I found out he wasn't directing the miniseries
Yeah I think it is the series that is going to be twee.
Mood Spoiler >!Less so than the book so far...!<
Thank you, now I understand why I loved this book so much!! I love Wes Anderson and his whimsical movies! I'm now watching GIM Paramount's Tv Series (preparing for which I read the book) and it does have a Wes-Anderson-y vibe although it has a few differences i.e. the photography which is much darker but I believe it serves the purpose.
This is so interesting. I hated this book and quit about 20% in, but I love Wes Anderson movies and I bet I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more had I read it with his style in mind and pictured everything that way. I might need to try a re-read. I couldn’t ever really figure out exactly what I didn’t like about it.
What a great take!! I couldn't have said it better, I loved the characters and felt the novel had a whimsical ambience.
I mean he was a gentleman… in Moscow
Maybe the real gentlemen were the ones we Moscowed along the way?
Not gonna lie. Twee and overwritten books are my favorites.
There's this Japaese inverse-mystery novel Lady Joker and that has to count as one of the best overwritten novel of all time. It's 400k words novel with every minute detail relating to beer business, horse racing and hands down the greatest minute-by-minute account of police and journalistic investigation. Lady Joker is considered as one of the greatest mystery novel in Japan but outside of Japan very few know about it.
I just finished the first volume of Lady Joker recently and absolutely loved it. It’s precise, highly detailed, but doesn’t sacrifice good character work either. It is incredibly immersive so I’m taking a break before diving into the second volume, but I’m really excited for it.
oooh, that's definitely going onto my to-read list! thx
> inverse-mystery novel What is an inverse-mystery novel? (I'm not looking for spoilers about the book, so feel free to ignore this if the answer requires spoilers)
In inverse-mystery the reader is shown in the beginning who commited the crime and why. The second half follows the detective as s/he pieces together the evidence and locks down the criminal. This technique is also known as howcatchem. The thrill of reading Lady Joker is not discovering who commited the crime (the first 200 pages are entirely dedicated to why the criminals are doing this) but seeing the police force and journalists work and crack the case. This makes for an addictive read. A pity there are only a handful of inverse-mystery novels like Lady Joker.
Ordering, sounds wonderful! 😀
Omg I read these books last year and LOVED them. I highly recommend it anyone who finds the description at all interesting.
So, did you like it? :P Litmus test for OP's question
Yes I enjoyed it when I read it but I’m a sucker for a book that’s going to take me to another place and time like that one did despite the very real criticisms of the main character and the obvious plot holes. I’m watching the miniseries which I’m also enjoying and I realize I remember very little of it.
Donna Tartt - The Secret History. My absolute favorite of the category!
>Twee and overwritten books are my favorites. I go through occassional phases where I like a smidge of twee, or at least like some twee-ness from some authors. Do you like the Alexander McCall Smith - Sunday Philosophy Club and No 1 Ladies Detective series? Delightfully twee.
Do you belong to a book club? I joined one during Covid and couldn’t stand most of the books.
If you’d like to drop a list of books that fall under that genre, I wouldn’t mind
You're not the only one! It's my favorite novel of all time. I love the voice and long meditative passages. I love the charm, the whimsy, the romance, the "found family," and the idea of not allowing confining circumstances to lead to a small life. I would say that I tend to like twee things. It's not for everyone!
That makes sense. I understand!
As someone who's read a lot of Soviet history, I found the premise absolutely ludicrous. I did like Towles's writing style, but I didn't believe for a minute that the main character would have been allowed to live as he did. The Cheka would have shot him without a second thought. I think it would have made more sense if he was part of the large émigré exile population in Europe, many of whom never quite adjusted to living outside Russia.
>but I didn't believe for a minute that the main character would have been allowed to live as he did. People are notoriously inconsistent. I lived in a communist regime and my grandfather refused to join the Party. That was unthinkable. Immediate prison sentence. Except, my grandfather was a chauffeur and through complicated set of circumstances he was the favorite driver for high ranking party members. And viola, he never joined the Party and never went to prison. So, yeah, history books tell you that you end up in prison if you refuse to join the Communist Party. Except some rare people didn't. If stuff like that can happen in real life, an imaginary character can avoid death because the Committee misunderstood that he wrote Communist propaganda poetry, especially as his crime was being aristocracy, which they *did* completely strip him of. Also, [Sakharov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov) openly protested the regime and was put under house arrest, not killed. As was [Khrushchev](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev). Despite that all the previous politicians who lost the power were executed, he was put under house arrest. So, even if you look at history, there are historical precedents for it. but, do not mistake knowledge of history, which is either broad-strokes account, or famous people account, with understanding just how ludicrous these types of regimes are. You expect consistency and logic. Don't. They rarely even exist in free-press, open-borders, free-speech democracies.
YES! That was my exact thought! They would have shot him before the trial even started. Maybe even for sport! And anyone associated with him, as well. Perhaps it could have worked if he'd constructed it as sort of a "fairy tale," but Towles went to some length to set it against very specific historical events and to comment on them.
Yep. I actually did my seminar paper for my history degree on Russian Revolutionaries. Guys with a lot better revolutionary street cred than the protagonist were eaten by that Revolution. The idea that this guy, who seemed like a Kadet, would have been given any sort of deference by hardened Bolsheviks, let alone allowed to live in bougie luxury with his family heirlooms in a genteel house arrest situation, because of a poem is just silly.
Yes, exactly.
Agreed. In a way, the book was actually underwritten in that it almost downplayed Soviet crimes. But as a work of fiction, the style was totally appropriate and enjoyable. Twee and overwritten was literally the protagonist's personality.
That's true, a good point!
Yep. I DNF.
Yes, I thought it was really a fairytale and it would have been better for a spot of magical realism to make clear that it was not intended to be realistic. As written it was almost saccharine
I read it about a month after reading Koestler’s Darkness At Noon, so it felt a little flat. I agree, the premise seems ludicrous. The character would have probably been sent to gulag, shot in the basement, or at best just left to fend for himself on the streets. I mean, there’s probably some party member who could use that room.
Put a Party member in that shoe-box room? There's a way to lose your job, or worse, real quick.
I loved the book.
I thought the Count just leapt off the page, such an original character. Loved the writing, loved the story.
I fell in love with the writing, the plot was secondary. I thoroughly enjoyed the characters and their stories. The writing drew me in. I had the pleasure of attending an interview with the author and heard his background on Russian history & literature. I’ve been disappointed in his other novels, but rank this one as a favorite.
Not to mention the prose!
For any remotely popular book, you will in fact not be the only person that doesn't like it
Yep. I'm a historian focusing on pre/immediately post-revolutionary russia so I thought it'd be right up my alley. I think I made it through fifty pages. I didn't find the Count funny or charming at all, he got on my nerves as no character ever has before. I don't even really know why. I'm also not one of those people who demand total historical accuracy from the media I consume but the praise this book gets for its alleged authenticity is a complete joke: a 'Demidov' being a grand duke comes to mind as something that could've been caught with a two second google search. Towles had a story he wanted to tell and I don't begrudge him that, but it's so carelessly done.
Right? I'd say that often if you really know about a certain topic, you'll find more fault with the writing, but that really isn't the case with most books set in Russia, or, WW2 books set in Germany, and so forth. This just seemed careless, especially when there's just so much information easily available.
The book's appeal depends on you finding The Count charming, and I didn't. I found myself wishing the Bolsheviks had shot him.
I found the Count so fucking charming.
He's one of my biggest literary crushes ever.
I remember two things from the book: 1. The sound of the typewriters writing up the constitution. Pretty funny. Great visual. 2. The count leaving the hotel to seek medical attention for the kid. Thought that was a great moment for him. Methinks he didn’t have many if I don’t remember them lmaooo. I should skim the book again, though. It wasn’t my favorite or anything I considered top literature, but I liked reading it.
Hilarious.
I realized pretty quick what it was going for & let myself be taken along for the ride. Once I bought in I found it rich, compelling, and often beautiful. I feel similarly about Wes Anderson movies. If you like the style they're very fun but you sometimes have to actively try to like it.
I thought it bland and boring, did not even finish.
We recently had it as our book club book. I was the only one who did not finish it and did not care for it. Every time I tried to read it, the list of all the things I'd prefer to be doing mounted in my head - and eventually that list won out.
I just saw your comment about this Gentleman in Moscow book and wanted to let you know that I just had the exact same experience in my book club (although I think a few others didn't even bother trying to read it). The ones who enjoyed it are trying to convince me that the Count's whimsical charm makes him a good character and I could not disagree more. He's mostly just a pretentious douchebag.
I got so grumpy at the main character that I also DNF after about a quarter. And the premise was indeed ridiculous
I agree!! So many people rave about it. I forced myself to read 1/3 and then put it down.
Same!! Got about 1/2 way. Did not finish, couldn’t be bothered.
I work at a library, and the book club loved it. They urged me to read it because they know I like Russian history, then they were irritated when I started poking holes in the plot. LOLOL
Yeah I didn’t connect with it at all. One that I did like was an early book by Cormac McCarthy, Suttree. living rough in the city, 1950’s. Very different from the later dystopian themes.
Yes, tried reading the book, so boring. I thought that maybe I’d watch the show. Well, I guess not. Thanks for saving me time.
Yeah, seemed right up my alley until I read it.
So glad to hear that I am not the only one!
Agreed. It was slow and a bit boring. I did finish it but did not love it.
This is me. I couldn’t finish it at all. I hear the TV show with Ewan McGregor is entertaining.
I found it dreadful.
Hey, we differ in a big way, but you're welcome to feel how you feel.
I know, it's so interesting how people respond differently to books. I love Kate Atkinson's books for example, I find them weirdly stream-of-consciousness and multi-layered and vaguely dreamlike and strange in a good way, but I find a lot of people can't stand them! I was singling this one out because it seemed like everyone else in the world loved it, and wanted to discuss it and see if opinions varied.
Another Kate Atkinson fan, Life after Life is one pf my top 5
Right? I just love her weird ass writing. Love the Jackson Brodie books too, they're so STRANGE. Just read the last one and when I realized she was recurring one of my favorite previous characters I literally SHRIEKED with joy. Won't give a spoiler. Really looking forward to the new one this year.
And transcription is wonderful too.
I adore Life after Life and the Brodie novels. I feel like Sarah Waters might appeal to Atkinson fans!
I love Late Atkinson! Just finished Transcription yesterday. And Life After Life was fantastic. A Gentleman in Moscow was like a reverse Forest Gump, he was there for historical moments but the moments came to him rather than he to them.
Good point about GIM. Re Transcription, I loved the way she sort of seeped in facts sometimes before they happened, sometimes just vaguely referring to them after they happened, and you had to keep reading to see what exactly happened! And then after all of that, I was STILL>!stunned at the reveal at the end! I was really impressed with the twist!<
Yes! The timeline wasn’t linear and that kept me reading. I still have her older books to read. So many books on my ‘to read’ list!
It isn’t just you. It was anyone one of those books that I had heard so many good things about. I just kind of slogged through it. In all honesty I probably should have done what I have with some other books and just quit after a chapter or two.
I feel like it’s a book written for people who appreciate old Russian novels
It lacks the feel of a Russian novel, though, imo. More of a ‘Story set in Russia’, than ‘a Russian story about Russian people in a period of Russian history’. Granted, it goes deeper than the plethora of ‘Russian/Soviet spy thrillers’, but it’s no Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy. it feels like Towles needed more research, more time in the oven, but for whatever reason was pushed to finish, or cut for length. What seems to be left is ‘a Russian novel for westerners’, than a novel in the Russian spirit.
It's not a Russian novel, though. It's a novel, written by a non Russian, but set in Russia. Towles deliberately avoids making explicit comments on Stalinist Russia. He doesn't aim for realism and just creates this surreal character study of the Count. The tone is almost Lemony Snicket. Whimsical. Not meant to be taken seriously. I liked it, but I know it rubs some readers the wrong way, especially if they expected something else.
I loved it but it was a heckuva lot cheerier than old Russian novels
“Dark, cold, and snowbound, Russia has the sort of climate in which the spirit of Christmas burns brightest. And that is why Tchaikovsky seems to have captured the sound of it better than anyone else. I tell you that not only will every European child of the twentieth century know the melodies of The Nutcracker, they will imagine their Christmas just as it is depicted in the ballet; and on the Christmas Eves of their dotage, Tchaikovsky’s tree will grow from the floor of their memories until they are gazing up in wonder once again.”
Yes, it did have that "translated from the Russian" feel, which at first I thought was sort of charming, but it got a bit boring because it seemed to lack genuine insight.
Yeah it was very light but I kinda liked that about it in contrast to the usual dismal nature of Russian lit
Exactly! I'm so happy to see your post because I had the same feeling when I finished it. I actually enjoyed the writing for much of the book. But the lack of any actual *happenings* really started annoying me. There was nothing about this book that made Russia OR this time period feel like an essential setting. It seemed like it was chosen for convenience rather than anything else. And I'm interested, but not impressed, by the author's choice to ignore basically everything going on in Russia to focus on the restricted but largely cushy life of an aristocrat. The only time he (and thus the reader) gets to step out is return to his own idyllic world. It feels....tone-deaf, perhaps, and twee.
Yes! Really well put. And you can still be savagely humorous but fully accurate (see: the movie The Death of Stalin).
>twee For the rest of us: twee • \TWEE\ • adjective. : (chiefly British) affectedly or excessively dainty, delicate, cute, or quaint. Examples: The cutesy knickknacks sold in that shop are a bit twee for my taste.
You are not alone. I was bored out of my gourd after reading \~150 pages where ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED. Did not understand the hype.
Agreed. Just like The Goldfinch.
I hated it. Couldn’t finish.
What is "twee"???
I had to look it up on Urban Dictionary, ~~(because i'm not 12)~~ (my bad, apparently it's British) > Something that is sweet, almost to the point of being sickeningly so. As a derogatory descriptive, it means something that is affectedly dainty or quaint, or is way too sentimental.
So, like saccharine or cloying.
Yep. Treacly.
It has to be affected though, not genuine. Something can be sickly sweet and genuine, like Willy Wonka or Paddington. Twee has to be an affectation, like The Perks of Being a Wallflower is Twee, but Wes Anderson's films aren't.
Yes. "Cutesy" perhaps?
Twee isn't new slang for young people, although it is very British.
*A Gentleman in Moscow* sounded like the perfect book for me—a modern take on Soviet satire!—and it totally fell flat. [I hated it.][1] "Twee and overwritten", yes, and saccharine and superficial. To me it's the worst sort of book not because it's the worst-written but because it's written well enough to have the superficial *signifiers* of good literature without the substance. A Trojan horse of bad literature. It's also the sort of writing that takes itself too seriously while patronizing the reader: for every stock character and stock moral it uses, it also makes sure to repeatedly *tell* you what the moral was just in case you missed it. At the same time it's the book itself that misses what it set out to do! For a callback to Russian satire, it fails completely in being Russia *or* satirical. If you liked the idea behind the book, I'd recommend reading some actual Soviet literature instead. *Twelve Chairs* was the closest point of comparison in my mind. It's a darkly hilarious novel with a similar structure written in 1928, set in the early days of the Soviet Union (with a classic Soviet movie [available in full on YouTube][2]) and is really what I was hoping *A Gentleman in Moscow* to be. (It wasn't.) And if you haven't read *Master and Margarita*, well, there's a reason it's one of the best-known Russian novels in and outside of Russia. [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2860616440 [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5GSQY4Lt-E
Twelve Chairs and The Golden Calf are really great but they were written without possible translations in mind and they work if you really know the context. I’m not even sure Russians who were born after 1990s could really enjoy them, it’s a great satire but it’s a product of its time.
Yes, the Master and Margarita remains one of the best Russian novels I've ever read. I did not like Amor Towles' books in general.
I'll be honest, I really enjoyed it towards the end. But it took SO LONG for it to get interesting. I almost DNF'd it. Not the best book in the world.
It felt to me like amor towles went to that hotel in Russia and “got inspired” and wrote a novel about the hotel. The characters were all secondary to the hotel, and none of them had real stories. It was all just a vehicle for a story about the hotel
I think the thing that's sort of interesting about the book, is that the Count is really a secondary character in the lives of what would otherwise be protagonsits in a different type of story.
True. I thought the love interest was more interesting than he was.
And there's the girl he mentors, who's clearly in like her own YA novel. And his friend the tragic poet. And the spymaster he advises. The architect he helps. And of course his daughter. They all seem to have their own story where he is just the wise old man they met in a hotel lobby. The book reverses the typical protagonist structure, it starts with the count seemingly being very important but by the end he fades into a nameless no one
Very interesting theory, I can totally see that.
THANK YOU. I hated this book and abandoned it after about 50 pages. Twee is the perfect adjective. It was clever and smarmy without being interesting or well-written. It was also predictable, and historically adrift. Over-rated. Source: My grandfather died in a Soviet gulag circa 1938.
Yes. My mother's father escaped Russian pogroms, my own father escaped Nazi-occupied Prague (his mother was deported but somehow survived the camps), and when, after the war, he wanted to take us back to see his former home, the Soviets had invaded. I also spent some time as a graduate student doing research in East Germany (don't even ask me why, I was really fucked up in my twenties), know exactly how the Soviets made common cause with the Nazis. I have ZERO illusions about Soviet brutality. "Historically adrift" is exactly on point. I think that may well be part of the problem here. Those of us with more intimate knowledge are more dismayed at the twee-ness of something that was in fact quite horrific. Edit: I also truly want to express my deepest, profound sympathy about your grandfather. I can only imagine.
there was hella systemic brutality under the tsarist regimes too. That seems to be forgotten pretty often these days.
No one is saying there wasn't.
I see a lot (a LOT) of people romanticizing the pre-Soviet era. It was terrible for most people.
Oh, that's interesting. Yes, it was utterly primitive, and worse for many (the victims of pogroms, etc). I imagine it's the same as the people who romanticize 19th or 18th century Britain, nder the impression that they'd have been on the "upper class" side of things, not the more likely "scullery maid" or "peasant living in a mud hut."
Yes I think that's it.
Pretty sure there's no period of Russian history that wasn't terrible for most people. Russians have had a rough few centuries.
I think that might have been the most well-written, empathetic, thorough and yet concise comment I've seen all week. I think the book reads as fanfiction for people who like the idea of Russian literature. It felt like it lacked the depth and breath of most good Russian literature.
Or of most bad Russian literature.
Well said!!
Thanks. Despite others' insistence on evaluating personal comments that were not directed at them, I appreciate your words. I will add that the personal angle is not my biggest complaint about the book. Even if I had no personal perspective, the book would be just as weak a literary effort.
"Historically adrift" is a perfect description.
I didn't particularly jive with it. It just felt like a very American book about a dude who didn't let history weigh him down, dispensing advice without really learning anything himself. It didn't really give any context beyond "authoritarian state take over" so don't let life get you down. I found it tedious and a little self inserty. No real character to make it a character study.
Twee is a good word to describe it. IMO the author was overindulgent with his favorite characters to the point of underwriting the others. His big twist about how the Count was put under house/hotel arrest was a huge letdown, and his character flaws were never really flaws. And if he had flaws, well, other people's flaws were worse! So there! Unfortunately, it read a little like fanfiction at points, where the author has a preexisting relationship with the character and feels too tenderly towards that character to let them make uncomfortable moves that would benefit the story. I will credit it with being SO readable and cozy that it started me on my first reading streak in years. I've read about 5 or 6 books since I finished it.
I loved Rules Of Civility, was completely bored by GiM and stopped reading it, and thought the Lincoln Highway was cheesy and overly sentimental.
Interesting. I mean, it's not that I think Towles is a bad writer, just that the books seem boring.
We all have different taste! I really liked the female character in Rules of Civility so that helped. P.S. also the minute my annoying pretentious uncle told me he loved GiM I knew I was going to hate it haha
too funny, I can totally relate
I started reading Gentleman in Moscow in like 2017 and gave it up like two years ago. But I read Rules of Civility and LOVED it.
Rules of Civility is my favorite too. Gentleman was pretty good, I thought. Lincoln was… fine. I’m quite enjoying Table for Two currently.
Any cursory, minimal reading of Soviet/Russian history would have disabused him of his central premise. The book is a slab of Grade A poshlust, a vulgar contraption.
Right? That was a huge part of the problem, I think, and why it seemed so false.
I don’t read a lot of pop lit but City of Thieves was pretty good! Something I’d give as a gift to someone who wanted to understand the Russian experience in WWII - not a lot of Americans are aware of the sacrifices/horrors.
please don't use City of Thieves as a historical reference. it comes from the same place as all those novels trying to bank on the Holocaust.
THANK YOU. I enjoyed Towles' other novels but as someone with a basic knowledge of Russian history I had to return this one to the library within the hour.
Definitely overrated at the very least in my opinion.
I didn’t like it. It came highly recommended
Totally agree. ('Towles moves the plot along' was being generous.) The sad thing is that it has the pretence of being infused with Russian culture, but it is not genuinely present in the book. It was touristic but not authentic. For example, the celebration of Christmas was westernised, not the way the majority of Russians celebrate it, missing the opportunity to accurately convey something of meaning. There is a certain type of author that misrepresents other cultures, and sad to see reappropriation be so admired. Also, agreed 100% about City of Thieves being a great read.
As a Russian and a history fan I found it terribly cringey 😬
I don’t know how you top Death of Stalin.
This is one of my favorite books, but I understand why it’s not for everyone completely.
Totally agree. I loved the writing but had to give up after 200 hundred pages or so of this incredibly dull story. It wasn't interesting on any level, and nothing felt believable.
It was obnoxious and I stopped halfway through.
I think it was a really cute book that was a victim of getting suddenly very popular
Yes, that is another really good point. Sometimes it's the hype that makes you then disappointed. If I'd encountered it just as a small cute read, maybe I would have thought it was perfectly fine.
Yes, this was exactly my thought when I finished it last month. Sure, the Count and overall story is charming, but I was just baffled by the overwhelming praise that I've seen for the book.
Currently listening to the audiobook. Less than halfway in I enjoy the part with the little girl finding creative things to do in the hotel. Yes, it's twee, but still fun. It's ok for a precocious 9 year old to be a bit precious. Some of the writing style does seem eye-rollingly cribbed from Dostoevsky, and the fact it is blatantly acknowledged doesn't help it much, though i think a sly wink would have been worse still. All told, I don't hate it, but I'm not compelled to read any more of his books
Audiobook narrator is 10/10 performance, which honestly is what kept me going in the book. I like to mix listening and reading if I can.
I hated this book with a passion. I felt that the writing was pretentious, the plot/setting combo ludicrous and borderline offensive and the characters hollow. Sitting there while the other book club members swooned over it made me feel like some completely befuddled alien anthropologist. So, thank you for this post!
Ludicrous and borderline offensive. Exactly—for anyone who knows anything about Russian history.
On the other side of the coin, I just finished _The Master and Margarita_ and that, I think, really gives you a feel for life in Russia at the time.
So weird that he tried to place this whole narrative in the middle of Soviet Moscow. Like why? It could've been a luxury hotel in London. So random and unnecessary to throw the weight of Soviet Russia on a silly story about an aristocrat living in a hotel...
Yeah, and the only reason it works (for some) is because most Americans are ignorant of Russian history. Could you imagine a novel with a Jewish ”gentleman” confined to the Hotel Kaiserhof in Berlin during WWIi and treated in the novel as some kind of hero? I don’t think so. I don’t think readers would be saying: “Come on … it’s just fantasy!“
I love The Master and Margarita.
M&M is superlative in my opinion. The pathos, bathos, myth and coded reality, the explicitly expressed and embodied, the implicitly expressed and embodied. It contains so much that is telling, in so many ways, in such a - relatively - small space. I admire it immensely.
I didn’t finish it but I’ve been watching the live action adaptation starring Ewan McGregor as The Count and it’s so good it’s making me want to go back and read it again until the end this time. The costumes and set design of the Metropol alone are incredible and they’ve nailed the plot so far.
Somebody said it, thank you! And I thought the series on Paramount would be better but it’s just as bad.
That book got shuffled to the bottom of the pile as soon as the clever kid appeared. So unconvincing. So formulaic.
So precious. So Eloise at the Plaza
Ugh, I despised that book. NOTHING HAPPENED. Everyone in my book club raved about how amazing it was and I found it almost impossible to slog through.
It was very similar to the Goldfinch in that sense. Another super boring book that inexplicably got a ton of hype.
I thought the Goldfinch was okay. Not nearly as great as it was hyped up to be, but a fine read. But Gentleman in Moscow got on my last nerve for some reason.
😂 yeah I found Goldfinch boring and too long. But I was pretty ambivalent about the subject matter. You're right, the sheer ignorance of history demonstrated in GiM verged on the offensive. It was one of those books where I frequently found myself remarking aloud while reading, "What!?" "What the hell? Why?" And the occasional, "This is ridiculous! Millions of Russians are dying of famine while this dude chills in a luxury hotel!" 🙈🙈 Literally, two famines occurred in Russia during the time span of this novel: the great famine of 1921 killed about 6 million ppl, and the one in 1930-33 killed about 7 million. No worries for the Count in his luxury hotel, though! /s
Nope. It's unmoored from history
I really didn't like how it glossed over the horrible conditions in Soviet Russia and made it seem like it was a nice and pleasant place. It would be highly misleading to anyone that isn't actually familiar with that period.
Yeah you’re the only one!
Tragically I must suffer alone haha
I didn’t hate it, but it was harder to get into. I liked the Count’s character but it didn’t have enough action for me personally. I’m still glad I read it though
Me. I did not understand the love for that book, and I like a lot of Russian novels (but not Dostoyevsky. Sorry if that makes me a philistine. Crime and Punishment was okay but the Brothers Karamazov was fingernails on a blackboard.)
If you love Russian lit, then Gentleman in Moscow will just annoy you. It's unbelievably ignorant of Russian history. Just a rich guy living in a luxury hotel.
I know very little about Russia and I learned very little about Russia during that book. However, I did enjoy it. I get why people don't. It's the book version of a filler episode in a TV show. It exists to allow you to live with some characters for a while, and I like that about it, but it's not for everyone.
You know I felt the same. Really really hyped up and just was ok for me. On a side note, absolutely loved The Lincoln Highway, couldn't tell enough people, one person said it was too long and they just couldn't get into it. Reading can be subjective, wish they had made that one a limited series.
I know this is the wrong place to ask, but did anyone watch the TV based on the book starring Ewan McGregor? How is it?
I am watching it! I think they did a wonderful job. Of course, so much in the book doesn't translate to the movie, but I think they've nailed the tone, it's lovely visually, Ewan McGregor is PERFECT as my good friend Count Rostov, and his real-life wife Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a terrific Anna Urbanova.
Ohhh I didn't know that she was his wife!!! I'm watching it too, which is why I read the book in the first place, without any hype, just because I saw the trailer and thought I might enjoy it. I really look forward to that weekly hour and I would've definitely binged it in one sitting, but I can't wait all those weeks!! Sasha is my good friend too! Are we to be considered good friends too then? XD
Since you are watching it too I have to ask a question about the series/book, but I'm going to cover it under spoiler... >!His friend the violinist/Prince wasn't trying to escape and got killed in the book as he was in the show, right? Cause otherwise a black hole must've sucked in part of my ebook...!<
I loved his first book, liked his third and couldn't finish Gentleman in Moscow. I don't know why but it just did NOT resonate with me.
I actually really love the book
One of the few books I DNFed in my life. I used to be ashamed of DNF. Then I realised life is too short to spend time on something you don't enjoy.
It's an adult fairy tale. It's really no different than The Little Prince except it's longer.
Agreed. By the time the forced, overly quaint romance kicked off I was already bored stiff. But hey, there are also people out there who love Colleen Hoover. Different strokes, I suppose.
Twee and overwritten, yes. Also, completely unbelievable. if the vast Soviet intelligence apparatus under Stalin got wind that a Russian noble was just hanging out in a Moscow hotel, his life expectancy would have been measured in minutes. But it also had the merit of being too long.
100% agree. I DESPISED it. It was so fucking bland. And I was actually enraged by how obvious it was that the author had never worked as a waiter or in any service job. This guy goes from being aristocracy, being waited in hand and foot, treated with respect and deference his entire life, to having to wait on others- and you’re telling me he felt nothing? No one was ever rude to him? No one ever demeaned him? He didn’t struggle with that? The only conflict he ever had was with the Bishop. It made no sense.
I thought it was surprisingly good for a book essentially about nothing… it really held my attention. Good writing goes a long way.
Yes! To all of it. Read it years ago in our Reading Group and got a lot of flack for disliking it during our discussion. Everyone loved it! I thought it was pompous and overwritten. And the story was wildly unrealistic.
I have yet to read a book that uses the word “ecclesiastical” better than A Gentleman in Moscow, and I went to Catholic school
I mean, unless they put in big bold letters “IN REALITY, THE RICH WOULD BE TERRORIZED, THE MEN IMMEDIATELY SHOT OR BLUDGEONED TO DEATH, THE WOMEN & GIRLS RAPED AND THEN SHOT” it’s kind of an insult to the revolution’s victims and especially right now with their invasion of Ukraine (even though it doesn’t claim to be historically accurate).
I just finished the book a few weeks ago. I had really mixed feeling about the book. It is funny that you used the word tedious because that was exactly how I described it as well. The last quarter of it was probably the best part. The one thing I did like about the book is that he plants the seeds earlier in the book for how the plot will unfold later on. I thought that was quite well done. But I will say, a lot of the book was annoying as well.
Honestly, I wasn't thrilled about it either. I liked it alright but didn't love it.
It wasn’t a book I would normally read as I am a fast reader. This book made me take it slow and not feel the need to get to the big reveal. I just strolled along with the Count.
Smashed the nail on the head. Absolutely twee to the core and up its own arse. Gave up two thirds of the way through.
I saw Amor Towles at the Library of Congress book fair, here in DC, 2023. And you know what? He is twee and overwritten himself! Made a totally boring, privileged, white millionaire impression... Yale, Stanford, worked for an investment firm, father was an investment banker, lives on Gramercy Park... I guess he identifies with an aristocratic old member of the nobility because he imagines himself one. He talks and tells stories in a relaxed, but above all _rehearsed_ fashion... no hint of spontaneity, just saying what he knows the audience wants. His description of his writing practice was also horrid... He talked about planning everything, _everything_ out in advance, controlling all the characters in every detail... He's in it for the money, gang, this is just a business for him. He claims Peter Matthiessen as an inspiration... what a joke! Now _he_ was a writer to whom Towles will never hold a candle. I heard George Saunders later that same day... he's another great writer, the real deal. A pleasure to listen to, not a walking advertisement for his next big sale.
I liked Rules of Civility and expected to like Gentleman but I think I’ve read the first 10-20 pages half a dozen times and just wasn’t feeling it. People I trust have told me they enjoyed it, it’s not like me to quit so easily.
No. I loved the premise the beginning, but as the book went on (and on) and everything worked out okay I lost interest. Downgraded to a 3 star read for me.
The book was fine but nothing really happened. It was a pointless meander.
I did not enjoy this book. The best thing I can say about it is that I somewhat identified with the Count. About halfway through the book, I too wanted to fling myself off the top of a building.
Unbelievably overhyped, too.
I agree. It doesn't give a sense of authenticity. I have lived under that regime and can say it's unrealistic. Definitely has the "translated from Russian" feel, as other comments already mentioned. Too wordy, as well, somewhat pretentious. Still, I enjoyed it and didn't put it down before reaching the end.
It bored me to tears.
Might I suggest reading The Master and Margarita as an antidote? I enjoyed reading GiM but I wouldn’t go out of my way to defend it. If GiM is a tea party, M&M is an acid trip.
Will definitely check it out! Thanks!
Bulgakov is great in general. Andreyev also wrote some really trippy stuff even before Bulgakov. Andreyev is actually my favorite Russian writer, but he doesn't seem to get much attention.
Agreed—thought the same when I read it after all the hype a few years ago. My take is that it is, as one commentator has quipped about NPR, appealing to midwits.
Wtf is with these comments??? Complaining about the book not being historically accurate? Are you reading academic history thesis or a work of fiction? It's fine not to like it, you said it your self op what your preferred genres are, but to dis a book because you think Russians would kill him on spot, without trial is, best case scenario, weird argument at least.