When I first read a review of the People in the Trees I was expecting the tale of a scientific odyssey for the key to eternal life. The reviewer made the story seem like it would be more of a cautionary tale of a well meaning scientist discovering a turtle that, when eaten, could maintain the body's rejuvenating processes indefinitely. After his report is published for the world to see, the small Micronesian island where the turtle lived, would be overrun and the existing indigent cultures essentially wiped out.
How wrong I was. While the narrative is essentially similar, the actual story is quite different. Narrated by Dr. Norton A. Perina, a fictional Nobel Prize winner for his work discovering a form of immortality, this story is told in a series of memoir pieces written from his term at a correctional facility. He has been convicted of the sexual assault of one of his 43 adopted children. Several of the short articles before the narrative begins asserts his innocence, and subsequent surprise at his conviction. For the majority of the book the story is about his work with the magical turtle and the undiscovered Micronesian society, but the very very end of the book is tricky. It leads you to a point where you think "oh, progress has destroyed another centuries old culture, but here is a hero who has selflessly pulled 43 orphans out of squalor" then proceeds to turn everything upside down.
The style of this book is almost a combination between autobiography and scientific nonfiction, except that it's completely fictional. The prison narrative of Dr. Perina is heavily footnoted by a friend of his. These footnotes serve to create a story that is both complete and incomplete at the same time. If you completely ignored the footnotes (although there is actually a 3 page footnote at one point) you would only be getting half of the story, from a very biased perspective. The additional footnotes help to situate the story in the time period of the 1950s as well as lend it a sense of legitimacy or realism.
What is only hinted at in the beginning and only fully addressed at the very end is the idea of child abuse. Although sexual intiation the children of Ivu'ivu at a young age are discussed, Perina views it through a scientific lens which removes any judgement of impropriety or rape. Its still a difficult subject to address, and several of his colleagues are unable to accept these practices as anything other than rape. Then this whole idea is completely dropped. I had a vague feeling when I began this book that it felt an awful lot like the Sandusky trial, and since its a recent 2013 publication, I'm sure that all the media attention that that trial attracted may have influenced Ms. Yanagihara in her writing. Although what I didn't expect is how she carefully choreographed everything her character does and says, leading up to the ending.
I didn't particularly enjoy this book. The writing was superb and really tricked me into thinking I was reading about an actual event, but I just didn't care for the subject matter or her character. Perina is unfortunately an egotistical, blunt, and chauvinist guy. He doesn't actually care about what anyone else thinks, and does things to ease his own urges rather than thinking about the people he is interacting with. I'm not sure who I would recommend this too, but possibly to someone who really enjoys realistic fiction and watches a lot of the news.
