In the case of "The Sleepers", as with most literary fiction worth its salt, you can often tell as much about the merits of a book from its admonishments as you can from its praises.
Not that the book has been reviewed mostly negatively — that isn't the case. It has, however, turned out to be quite polarizing in its reception, and there is a meta-irony to unravel between the narrative and some of its detractors.
But first, I suppose I should start with my own unadulterated thoughts about the novel, previous to my doomscrolling its reviews.
"The Sleepers", like any good New York novel, positions the city less as a backdrop than as an omnipresent character, heightening — even antagonizing — the emotions of its characters, functioning more as a psychic mirror than a setting. It is a classically executed Chekhovian drama, dressed in contemporary clothing, bearing a set of conflicts both perennial and refracted through this century.
It is a portrait of sexual-romantic attachment in an age that prescribes excess — as both an antidote and access point — for the spiritual decay of modernity.
Dan, a repressed and restless middle-aged intellectual, and Mariko, a part-time actress who’s long abandoned her ambitions with equal measures of indifference and regret, drift together in a relationship that offers animal comfort but little fulfillment.
Along with Akari, Mariko’s smug and more successful sister from Los Angeles, and Eliza, Dan’s naive student love interest, the main cast seems to map out the entirety of attachment style structure.
Dan — disorganized. Mariko — anxious, Akari — avoidant, and Eliza — secure (too young to be anything but).
The spiritual antagonist of the novel is not any one of them. It is the ubiquitous breakdown of communication itself—the adaptation to inorganic modes of communication between organic subjects; the covert and avoidant relational style born of digital malaise.
“Suzanne had once been real, flesh and blood; now she was a phone-phantom. ‘Suzanne’ wasn’t a single thing, a single form or body; she was distributed across platforms: Instagram, Facebook, Tinder, Gmail, Snap—a hive of Suzannes. And it was for this reason that a clean break-up was semi impossible: there were too many versions to break up with.”
This antagonist, transferable to any millennial or zoomer navigating love in the West, forms the tragic core of the story: the overarching pathos woven into its fabric. The characters, in turn, cannot be entirely blamed for their actions, or their inactions. They are subjects caught in its grip. This is the key to understanding not only the characters but character itself — for much of the narrative transcends storytelling (as good art often does), veering into existential and socio-philosophical terrain.
This brings me to my first point, in using some of the novel’s tactless criticisms as a platform for highlighting its strengths.
It is frustrating, as both a reader and writer, to see the merits of a book being judged solely on the likeability of its characters. This is not something entirely exclusive to "The Sleepers", to be fair, but a common reaction to many novels of the contemporary literary breed.
A one-star review on goodreads reads "—there was not a single head amongst the lot of characters that I wanted to be trapped inside. I guess I’m glad my brain doesn’t provide a continuous cycle of anxious thoughts.”
What a comment like this implies is something obvious to the current state of literature: that it’s experienced almost exclusively through the lens of how it represents the individual consuming it. And for many modern readers, that is where the depth of their experience starts and ends.
What’s really being communicated is: “This doesn’t represent me, because I’m a better person than that, therefore it is a bad book.”
Entirely, as I’ve said, the blame can’t be placed on the individual alone. They are — we all are — to a degree, subjects of contemporary culture.
But, the irony here is that, though the characters of "The Sleepers" can be viewed as narcissistic and self-serving, they are the same traits employed by those judging an entire work on the likeability of its characters.
Personally, I didn’t find any of the characters as repulsive as some made them out to be.
I found them to be perfectly human, with both pleasant and unpleasant thoughts and dispositions.
It is only because the character’s negative tendencies and intentions are revealed so bluntly — and the refusal of the author to dress them up as idealized binaries, that it has made certain people squirm, having to confront the inescapable complexities of human desire — the complexities that every individual wrestles with, whether fully realized or relegated to the unconscious.
That is why, if you hold a mirror up to a man’s face, he’ll love you for it. But if you hold it up to his soul – his inner self, he’ll despise you.
“hits too close to home.” is another review which proves such is the case, and gets to the heart of the avoidant nature, which is not only external, but internalized, of the 21st century person of the West.
One of the greatest strengths offered in the book is the narrator’s analysis of the characters' actions and environment.
“After a brief conversation with the hostess, who seemed annoyed that Akari was alone, and not with one of these incredibly buoyant groups of corporate Millennials, Akari got a seat in the corner, which felt something like punishment.”
Sharp. Neutral. Bone-dry wit.
“Maybe she would just get a coffee, except the wait staff would probably flip passive aggressive shit. She didn’t want to deal with more body language.”
Spot-on articulation on the self-consciousness and underlying tensions that exist living in a city like New York, a city that exacerbates the general malaise of its characters.
“People pretended like they weren’t watching, like they’d seen it all, like nothing fazed them, or even caught their attention, but it was a pose: the indifference New Yorkers showed toward each other highlighted their obsession with one another.”
Another gem.
Gasda’s gift for observation, for analyzing human behavioral traits, radiates throughout the entire novel.
Some readers have expressed distaste for the internal chatter, many of them revealing that the material went over their head. Personally, I struggle to understand this. I am certainly no intellectual savant, but I found the language to be more linear than it was abstract. It is not Finnegan’s Wake. Rating a book based on the inability to interpret it is cheap, as the issue has more to do with the reader than it does the quality of the book.
As the story progresses, the stakes get higher — and the tension seems to do anything but resolve itself.
One of my favorite chapters in the book is chapter six, introducing the character of Xavier, where Gasda handles the topic of death with surprising delicacy, philosophical precision, and empathy.
“He’d been to maybe fifty funerals in his life, including those of his grandparents and parents—friends, teachers, students, colleagues, lovers—and he’d never really thought, never really let himself think, about what it must have been like for them, the dead. He remembered watching his father die—even that had seemed abstract, and almost genial or benign. He remembered spouting cliches about how nice it was that his father died in his sleep, but now that he was the one dying, he understood how mind-numbingly cruel those end-of-life cliches were.”
The second and final part of the book (which is only 40 pages) calls out the mutual misery we often tolerate as love.
“Dan stamped out the cigarette with his boot and reached for her hand, which was gloved, and brushed her fingertips with his own. It had been at least a year since they had physically connected in any way. She felt nothing, but didn’t say anything; it couldn’t hurt just to be nice to him—not really.”
Without spoiling the ending, the allusions to Dan and Mariko’s fates post-separation are subtle and masterfully crafted.
Though this is a story which very much takes place in the present, it feels timeless in the subjects it tackles—issues heightened by our tools and technology — and the ironic distance it puts between us in our bids to connect.
My third and final comment on its critics is related to the prose, the syntax, the style itself.
Dispirited? Yes, but that ennui is exactly the point — it suits the content of the novel well, serving the characters and summing up their perspectives perfectly.
If you read this book, you will be entertained.
If you hate entertainment, you might enjoy the depth of its socio-philosophical commentary, its character and scene observations.
If you hate socio-philosophical commentary and character and scene observations, well… Tik Tok is only a swipe away from the goodreads app.