I assumed this book would be a lot fluffier than it is. It deals with some pretty heavy stuff and seems to deserve a heavier, one-or-two word name , as opposed to a character and an important symbol from two different stories (which are, of course, related).
On the whole, I liked it, though it's definitely a "tell, not show" sort of book, in that character's motivations are spelled out in narration, rather than only having their actions indicate their motivations. Telling is generally considered a lower form of story telling than showing. (I feel like I should cite something for that, but I run into it in a lot of critical reviews of art, especially for TV and film.) But I personally don't mind, especially when done by Milan Kundera, the King of Expository Narration. That said, it does seem a bit clunky in this book. There are some parallels between the three entwined stories that seem a bit...obvious. (Present day Marie pines after a guy who, we find out late in the book, is gay. The historical artist and translator Marie who's friends with Proust is implied to be in love with him! Coincidence!) And yet, some motivations remain weirdly obscure to me - it's not clear to me why Current Marie pines after a gay man for so long, and 5 years after cutting off the friendship, makes an impulsive decision (flee to Frace! Study Proust!) that seems more like fresh grief than the frustration of not being over someone that you feel you should be over. (This is coming from someone who knows the latter feeling all too well. I'm puzzled by Current Marie's complacency about her own habits - but perhaps I'm more self-critical than she was. I don't see any frustration of not being able to control your own emotions even after a long time. It's not clear if she's seen other people, distracted herself with hobbies etc or just rolled over and accepted she'll love a gay man for 5 years. Yikes.)
I can't decide if I appreciate the author's decision to use three intertwining tales spanning a century to examine the pyschology of neurotic women who are much too attached to the men in their lives. On the one hand, it's a hazard of being female that most (including lots of feminists, I'm sure) would like to ignore. The author doesn't directly state that this may be a byproduct of a patriarchy where (bourgeoise) women don't work outside the home, but it is implied that while Mme Proust and Sarah may die (or at least get to age 70) neurotically worrying about and cosseting their sons and seemingly having little of their own identity, Old-Timey Marie Nordlinger and Current Marie can possibly pull themselves out of sexual attachments to gay men via their careers (and by identifying with men and male agency, as Current Marie decides to, like Proust, move from translation to authorship, non-agency to ageny). It may take 5+ years though, career ladies; be warned.
On the other hand, it's really, really hard to sympathize with neurotic characters who don't have a lot of agency (even when they can), even if enough back story is given (over-narration!) to make their insecurities believable and understandable. I assume the author wanted to reclaim the negative stereotype of smothering mothers and pathetic fag hags (?) but I'm not sure it's entirely successful. Sarah is the most pathetic but also the most unlovable character and her cathartic moment is not followed up on. Again, the over-narration tells us that she's finally able to grieve her son's grandparents and her grandchildren* (nice line!) but we don't see a follow up to see if it stuck, or if it made her less emotionally-distant-yet-anxious. There's some hope, I guess.
Lastly, I've read a lot of these first-person-narrator-starts-to-write-the-novel-you've-just-finished stories lately (I suppose it's inevitable if the novel addresses the importance of novel-writing in a post-modern way) and man, it's getting cliched fast. I don't quite understand how Current Marie knows enough of Sarah's life to write the novel as it's implied that Max doesn't talk about it much. Perhaps Sarah's life is entirely Marie's imagination, which adds another (to me) vaguely annoying post-modern unreliable narrator layer.
*The complete non-mention of possible gay adoption brings up (a) the fact that this book was written before national legalized gay marriage in Canada and (b) the book's theme that adoption is not enough (for Sarah anyway) and the loss of blood relations haunts your life. In some ways this book is completely politically incorrect. Women are neurotic beings completely tied to their relationships with men! Adoption will never fill your aching need to belong! Come to think of it, this book probably barely passes the Bechtel Test, very surprising for a book written by a woman with three female protagonists.