Here is a link that includes many of the reviews which came out last year. Spoilers are everywhere, so best read it after you read the book (unless you don't mind spoilers.

I am also interested in other books which play with time (not necessarily time travel), and how you'd compare them with this one.

Here is a link that might be useful: Reviews of Confessions of Max Tivoli Andrew Sean Greer

Thanks for those links, Cindy. I read three of the reviews - Guardian, Washington Post and New Yorker/John Updike, and would recommend the latter. I completely agree with every aspect of Updike's view of the novel - 'Max Tivoli' is beautifully written, but ultimately not quite satisfying, as the prose outshines the plot. I felt that Greer had wasted a 'high concept' with enormous potential on a fairly uninspired love story.
[SPOILER ALERT] While Updike quite rightly complains about the fudged beginning of Tivoli's birth, I was particularly disappointed at the cop-out ending by suicide, which deprives the story of the most extreme experience of reverse aging, the old mind in the infant body.

Updike refers to Gabriel Brownright's story "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Apt. 3W", which sounds intriguing - has anyone here read it?

As for other books which play with time - John Irving's 'A Prayer for Owen Meany' is a different take on the theme of aging, in this case the refusal to grow up (same as Oskar Matzerath of the 'Tin Drum', Guenther Grass).

Well, I admit that I liked the book more than I expected to. I thought however that it was more like a novel of an obsession than a love-story. I felt that Max Tivoli was not in love with Alice - rather in love with an ideal; and he'd do anything to be near her. And if he really loved her, he surely would have been honest with her.

His treatment of Hughie near the end I thought was just cruelty - the sort of selfish behaviour I would have expected of a boy of twelve, rather than a man of nearly sixty; and I agree, I thought the ending was a cop-out.

There is another novel which I have read with a very similar theme - the book is called And Again? by Sean O'Faolain. In this novel, a man near his death is allowed to grow younger. So the difference is that he doesn't ever have the "young mind in old body" situation. It's a good while since I've read it, but I remember liking it.

I have mixed feelings. I did not think I would like the novel in the beginning; however, the style "grew on me". There is some beautiful, lyrical writing in this work, which I feel was somewhat wasted by the storyline.

As I read it, I had a "deja vue" feeling. Then I realized it was the same "voyeuristic" tone which Nabokov's "Lolita" had. (Again, beautiful writing, with an unsavory plot). There were also elements of Proust in Greer's work, which seemed derivative. I felt at times the author was bouncing back and forth between Nabokovian and Proustian styles.

I agree that it was the story of an obsession, but disagree about the ending being a cop-out. I think the finale was almost inevitable and logical, given the introspective misery of the protagonist.

I did enjoy the descriptions of life in early San Francisco. And learning new terms, such as "nisse." Finally, I appreciated the novel primarily because I like any work that stretches my imagination.

I can only contrast it to "Time Traveller's Wife" which utterly failed for me....

I admit I did not think I was going to be able to finish this book when I first started. However, as woodnymph said "it grew on me".

I found that Max was a selfish character, only looking for how he could get Alice. I also would have liked to see the ending go a different way, but it would have been hard to explain, with Hughie gone, how this would have been pulled off.

I think what I enjoyed most about this book was the glimpse of a San Francisco that was - the people, the opportunities, the fortunes that came and went at the flip of a coin. The way that people could just disappear and reinvent themselves - something probably happened frequently and is much more difficult today (fortunately).

I have many of the same feelings as the other posters here - the slightly 'dirty' feeling, the marriage of different styles that feels off-kilter, the unsatisfying ending. I really hated the ending, the selfishness of it - what a horrid thing to do, not only to Hughie, but to Alice and his own son. Did he really not consider that his death would be life-changing event, and almost certainly a negative one, for his son? As Martin has said, he was a man of 60, not a child.

But I'm glad I read it, and I enjoyed it. It was a very different book that I normally choose, and I feel I have learned from it and broadened myself.

Another RP book and not a Carolyn book, but I did enjoy it. As some of you have said, old San Francisco was fascinating; and some of the writing was beautiful.

I did wonder why if Max was born baby-sized, he had to regress in size at the end. The premise of looking old to young while maturing mentally young to old I could accept, but the change in body size back to an infant didn't compute.

Was I the only one to catch on slowly that Hughie loved him?

Great comments. I am usually a plot driven reader, who likes the language to be nice but basically drives the plot. But in this book, I really loved the language for itself. Through it, a very improbably and odd premise make perfect sense.

I love his mother's rule 'be what they think you are'. I suspect many successful people do just that. Which means losing yourself, of course.

Did anyone else wonder if Max's journey was used more as a history of San Fransisco pre WWII? Like you, siobhan, that was perhaps my favorite part of the book, seeing one of my favorite cities through his eyes.

I did think he loved Alice, always had. And I agree with woodnymph that the ending was inevitable. I don't know how else it would have ended. As far as selfish, remember that most people who committ suicide want to escape the pain they are in. They usually are not thinking of the consequences of their actions. So it fit, for me.

By the way, there is a birth defect called Progeria which causes a child to prematurely age. I wonder if Greer used this for his ideas for Max.

I have not read Curious Case of Benjamin Button, tho I must now! And I did read And Again ages ago and loved it. Time for a reread.

Here is a link that might be useful: Progeria

Sort of book you could sit back from and say "well that was beautifully written" without becoming too emotionally involved one way or the other.
Like Carolyn I found the Age/physical appearance premise out of kilter. If Max's mother gives birth to a seventy year old man - even a wasted old bag of bones- I would at least have expected an emergency caesarean. Are we to assume that Max is born a normal sized baby who quickly matures to the size and appearance of an aged man and then goes into reverse in the physical sense and regresses to infant size? I know a suspension of disbelief is required in novels such as this but there should at least be an internal logic to such tales.
Max's obsessive love for Alice? Could identify completely with it if it wasn't so distantly and coldly depicted by Greer. Not a fan of lengthy sexually explicit passages in books but Max Tivoli could have done with at least one scene where Greer dropped his Nabokovian/Proustian pose and given us a scene with some real sexual oomph.
Max's manipulation of Hughie? "We are each the love of someone's life" says Greer. In Greer's eyes those who love obsessively are bound to a fate of manipulation and despair. Alice gets what she needs off Max - her independence - and buggers off. Max takes what he needs from Hughie and dismisses him. Both Max and Gughie suicide when they realise that final possession of the loved one is beyond them. Truly I found Hughie the most sympathetic character in the book.
Max's suicide? In a sense Greer wrote himself into a corner.This is supposedly Max's hand written journal. Not much scope for scenes of an infant prone in his cot feverishly scribbling down his version of the day's events. If Greer had written his book as some sort of interior monologue I suppose we could have carried on until Max dissolved into some sort of pre-embryonic soup.
The sense of voyeurism? May be intentional on Greer's part to suggest Max's eternal sense of being on the outside of life looking in.
Haven't much more to say. Despite some beautifully deft writing not a novel that absorbed me.

I also felt that Hughie was the most sympathetic character in the book. Alice, in spite of all the detail provided about her, never felt real - nor did her obsession with Hughie. What was it with her interest in photography? We were shown mainly self-portraits, frequently half-naked. It made it difficult to see Alice as a serious photographer, or to take her desire for autonomy as anything other than self-centredness. All in all she came across as a male fantasy - the typical elusive female who would become utterly unattractive if she stopped running away.

And I agree with Martin that Max did not actually love Alice, but was similarly obsessed with her. Again, only Hughie's feelings for Max (although I was late to catch on) felt convincing.

The ending could have been handled differently to enable Max's complete regression, e.g. been provided by a different narrator, annotations/notes by Sammy or Alice or Dr Harper.

I was re-reading some passages last night, and to me they seemed to express Max's real love for her, not obsession. However - perhaps my definition of both is different from others. How would you define them?

One of my fav scenes btw was when Alices mother started hitting on him when he was 17 and looked 50+. Pure Woody Allenish.

>Could identify completely with it if it wasn't so distantly and coldly depicted by Greer

I agree that Alice didn't seem real; certainly her character was not explored enough, and while I think there was love, I also had the 'distant and cold' feeling at times, esp from her end.

Another aspect of the book that I thought explained Max's character was his disability. It was that - its a hidden disability so there's is the secrecy component. Its being seen as disabled by those who know, rather than be seen as a 'real person'. Its having to make compensations for things that others don't have to do. I suspect this might have caused some of his bitterness and introspection.

I think Max's other obsession was himself, due to his disability. He never quite seems to get beyond his own ego. There seems very little empathy coming from him, which makes him appear a tad narcissistic, IMO.

I agree that Alice's character had quite a bit lacking, in terms of being rounded out, and that Hughie was far more sympathetic and genuine.

I am struggling due to the internal logic that larry touched upon, and that has so far has stonewalled me. I will perservere and get past that(The LIttle Engine that Could springs to mind) but note that I did choose a disastrous bodice ripper novel before I picked up Max T again ( for an exciting review, read the what are you reading thread). This just shows the desperate straits I am in. I am also struggling with my real life book club's choice "Mercy Among the Children" which is one of those dysfunctional novels that has me crying for mercy while reading it. The bodice ripper, sad to say, pre-empted that one too. Sad...sad...
Maybe I'm just not in the mood....

I would not be so harsh on Max, because he just at the begining admits he lead a wrong life

"I wanted to put that down in case I am discovered and unable to complete these pages, in case you
become so disturbed by the facts of my confession that you throw it into the fire before I get to tell
you of great love and murder. I would not blame you.
So many things stand in the way of anyone ever hearing my story.
There is a dead body to explain
A woman three times loved.
A friend betrayed, and a boy long sought for
So I will get to the end first and tell you we are each the love of someoneÂs life"

Certainly he made some mistakes , but letÂs stop just a moment to think at what must be a life where
you never can open your hearth and always you have to "pretending" to be what they think you are, I
found this rule quite harsh, and he wasnÂt even lucky with his parents, his father just walked away ...
his mother got a little nut...so, without parents to take care of you, itÂs hard to go ahead .
Of course with hindsight the worst mistake he made was not to follow hugie advice, but with
hindsight we re all wise
May be it seems only to me, but I think the most used words in the novel are "sad" and "sadness"
Max realizes only with the death of his friend Hugie, how ugly his behaviour has been, but incapable
to modify his behaviour he just makes another mistake.
Ultimately I agree with Cindy.

But I also wonder if the author had a double-meaning, for instance, about euthanasia that is a great
issue nowadays, and about what conformism is.

grelobe

"Was I the only one to catch on slowly that Hughie loved him?"

No, Cindy, this came as a surprise to me too (sometimes I can be so slow!)

There was such a sense of melancholy, sadness and loneliness in this book; very lyrically written, but oh so sad.
I did enjoy it though.

Jane
UK

Bump

>one of those dysfunctional novels that has me crying for mercy while reading it.

I absolutely cannot and will not read those. I have had my fill. No more. My sympathies when you have to discuss it in your group :)

globe, I think its that first part which brought my sympathy for Max. He knows what he has done, and in writing it down, he hopes to explain himself. And as you said, his life must have been hell in so many ways. Some people with disabilities are able to over come all that, and some just can't, esp with disabilities that people don't understand and are afraid of. He didn't have the normal social contact that kids his age did as they grew up. He didn't exactly have good role models either. So he grew up with his mom's rule, and little else in terms of social behavior.

And yet despite this lack, he obviously knew what love was, felt it, and received it.

>I also wonder if the author had a double-meaning, for instance, about euthanasia that is a great
issue nowadays,

I am not sure if that's where he was going, but its certainly an issue in the book. Is it ever warranted?

>and about conformism

Yes. What is normal, what is correct behavior, how do we (as individuals and society) react to those who do not fit the norm, or do not behave 'correctly' (I am not talking about criminal behavior here) - certainly part of what the book is about I think

Ever the optimist - to the top.

>What is normal, what is correct behavior, how do we (as individuals and society) react to those who do not fit the norm, or do not behave 'correctly' (I am not talking about criminal behavior here)

Anyone want to take these questions on, as they relate to the book?

Cindy, after reading some of the contributions on this thread I'm beginning to wonder whether Greer is actually making a poiont about homosexuality - "be what they think you are" could be Hughie's maxim, too. Max describes himself as 'monstrous' although he is the victim of his predicament, has not chosen his affliction - the same could be said for Hughie's situation. Both men try to conform at enormous cost.

I didn't think of that. What a great observation anyanka. Especially in that time period, Hughie would have been viewed as a "monster". So he also had to "be what they think you are", which he may have learned from Max.

Wow ana, I missed that completely. But you may be correct. Interesting - I wondered why he chose this particular disease for Max. The answer speaks to just that observation - look at those who are considered monsters by some, and what they have to do to fit into society.

>he is the victim of his predicament, has not chosen his affliction - the same could be said for Hughie's situation

Amazing how many folk think that Hughie did indeed chose it, and so blame him.

When I read books with disabled characters who are having to fight for every thing in those days, I think how lucky folk are to live in our society now, in terms of the options for people with disabilities. They now have rights, and accomodations that need to be met, people are more accepting of them in public, and for some, the advancement in medical treatment and therapy can improve their lives (I have several students with repaired cleft lip. You'd never know it) But even as recently as the 60s, there wasn't much acceptance, and much fewer resources. Most folk had little choice but live in an institution. Even someone as intelligent as Max - some parents would have placed him there, assuming that he was mentally handicapped. When institutions were investigated in the 60s-70s, they found many intelligent residents who were placed for just that reason. Such doesn't happen now (or isn't supposed to, at any rate)

People in the Deaf culture allows an interesting look at how one group compenstates Some members of this population think wearing hearing aids, speaking, using Signed English instead of ASL, or god forbid getting a cochlear implant for your child is tantamount to heresy. They can't be 'normal' in our community, so they say they are 'normal', that deafness is a way of life, not a medical condition. Some of these folks remain within their small community. That is their right of course. Its their normal.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, unmarried mothers were sometimes put into mental institutions in this country...

Cindy, your mention of deaf culture is a good example of a challenge to normality. Elizabeth George's 'For The Sake Of Elena' features the varying attitudes to deafness (although I have to say that while it is set in Cambridge [UK], the characters obsessive behaviour struck me as unEnglish...). Although I find it bewildering that anyone would turn down opportunities to make life easier/richer, the deaf culture's challenge to our perceptions of 'normal' is invigorating and necessary.

I find it bewildering too - but when I speak with some of them, they feel that their life is rich and full, and they are indeed normal in their eyes and in their communities eyes. So yes, it sure does challenge what we think of as normal.

Parents with deaf children find that attitude bewildering too. Obviously for them, having a deaf child was not in the cards, and they want to do whatever it takes for their child to have a full and rich life. Someone from the deaf culture telling them that they are wrong to do this, calling their doctors Nazis and sending them death threats, baffles and angers them, for good reason. They want whats best for their child, the DEAF culture wants to keep the child in their culture and thinks that the parents are denying them that right.

In another thread I mentioned Speed of Light by Eliz Rossner. Its an amazing take on just this subject, using people with autism. In the future, they find a cure for the disorder and are told that they must take the cure (surgery) or lose their jobs. Fascinating look at who is normal and what happens when we force people to fit into our reality.

If Max's parents knew of some kind of cure, something that would change the course of this disease, would he have been different?

Max is on his own with his affliction - although he meets one girl whom he suspects of reverse ageing, he does not reveal himself to her (again, a possible homosexual reference?). It would be interesting to come up with a notion of a subculture of reverse agers. The question to me is not, would he or his parents have taken the cure (they would have, without hesitation), but would he have embraced his affliction had he known others in a similar position?