21st Century Literature discussion

The Count was not able to leave the Metropol due to his imprisonment, but by the end of the novel where were you-did you want to stay at the Metropol-in the historically rich and opulent background Towles created- or, were you ready to leave it?

Please use this thread to discuss Books 4-5 & your Final Thoughts for Amor Towles' A Gentleman in Moscow.

Some of you might find interesting this discussion of AGIM on the Popsugar board back in 2017. It touches on several aspects of the novel that continue to be parts of my memories about this book. Will say more later if there are reactions here to these posts. More a comment than a: (view spoiler)[ (To some extent, they illustrate for me how divergent our reactions can be to the same information, yet indications may be buried in those reactions that, for all the differences, illustrate that underneath are often points of contact and possibilities for shared considerations, even if paths may still diverge or converge. Then, maybe I'm just an optimist in this season that celebrates hope.) (hide spoiler)]

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I finished this evening.

SPOILERS!

I enjoyed the book--I thought it was charming, actually--though by the end I started to feel as though there was perhaps a bit too much charm and a bit too little substance. I don't necessarily think it needed to include all the horrors of Stalinist Russia--this wasn't that story--but there was a kind of fairy tale element to this book that makes it hard to say anything about it other than 'it was charming'.

Time passes, things go out of date, and the trick is to stay true to who you are. This the Count was able to do marvelously.

Kind of an interesting twist on Chekov's Gun--the gun wasn't hung on the wall, but hidden behind the wall, and only referred to elliptically. These, of course, must have been the dueling pistols the Count mentioned earlier, that all good hotels would have kept.

I did expect the Count to follow Sofia, but the meeting with Katerina was suitable as well.

All in all, a pleasant read.

Interesting that just by chance, I happened to see someone's review for Christ Stopped at Eboli: The Story of a Year by Carlo Levi pop up on my home feed, and thought of the similarities between it and Gentleman of Moscow--Levi wasn't exiled for life, but here again were two aristocratic men confronted with a tyrannical regime that curtailed their liberty. Though it's been some time since I read Eboli, what strikes me as the difference between the two books was the narrator of Levi's book is different for his experience. The Count, to me, seems to be essentially the same.

Bryan wrote: "I enjoyed the book--I thought it was charming, actually--though by the end I started to feel as though there was perhaps a bit too much charm and a bit too little substance. I don't necessarily think it needed to include all the horrors of Stalinist Russia--this wasn't that story--but there was a kind of fairy tale element to this book that makes it hard to say anything about it other than 'it was charming'. "

I had the same feeling! I enjoyed the book, but was also left with an odd feeling that even though the book introduces some of the horrors of Stalinist Russia, the book does have a romantic tone that makes it easy to gloss over the atrocities.

Having read this novel twice before, I didn't read along, so waited until now to offer my perspective. Here's the review I wrote:

I was pleasantly surprised to become captivated by this story. I'm not sure how realistic all the plot details are, but in a time when reading the daily news is profoundly disturbing, it was a delight to wrap myself up in this ultimately gentle yet interesting tale. Looking back, I love how, as a reader, the realization grew in a very subtle way that the Count was truly a very good man.

I wondered about money throughout, as the Count from beginning to end always ate luxury food and wine, with additional, assumed expensive, nightcaps in the bar (and Audruis at one point gives him an "on the house" splash, indicating that the Count otherwise paid in some fashion). How did the Count pay for his food and lodging? It seems unrealistic to assume that the government would pay this, or that the hotel would, especially considering the Bishop's attentiveness to not wasting anything on the staff.

Did room and board become complimentary when he began working as a waiter? The novel leaves this point vague, only saying that the gold piece he had put in his pocket when he planned to commit suicide was replaced into the desk leg and not removed for 28 years. When Andrey's fairly poor home life is depicted, it seems unrealistic to assume that a waiter's pay could pay for daily luxury food and drink at the hotel, and of course we are not told whether or not the Count was paid for his work.

I've encountered discussion that wondered why the Count began work as a waiter immediately after deciding not to commit suicide. I also wondered and came to a tentative assumption that it was to support himself without using up his gold coins (and perhaps also to have the satisfaction of daily purpose in work he was well suited for). But I can't be sure, and the novel does not explicitly say.

I was reminded again how in my enjoyment of a book, the subject matter is secondary to the quality of the writing and the voice. I loved how the author frequently introduced some action or day with a paragraph that spoke of something universal; this connected me to the reading, and was done in a seamless way that became the normal tone of the book. A small example that made me smile describes the Count's morning prior to coffee:

"The room remained under the tenuous authority of sleep. As yet unchallenged, somnolence continued to cast its shadow over sights and sensations, over forms and formulations, over what has been said and what must be done, lending each the insubstantiality of its domain. But when the Count opened the small wooden drawer of the grinder, the world and all it contained were transformed by that envy of the alchemists - the aroma of freshly ground coffee. In that instant, darkness was separated from light, the waters from the lands, and the heavens from the earth. The trees bore fruit and the woods rustled with the movement of birds and beasts and all manner of creeping things, while closer at hand, a patient pigeon scuffed its feet on the flashing."

It was amusingly ironic that at this time in Russian history, the Count's hotel restriction became about the best thing that could have happened to him; the "luckiest man in Russia." I'm sure that most of us have had things happen in our lives that seemed bad at the time but turned out to be fortunate, and this sometimes surprising fact of life is mind opening.

I'm not sure how I feel about the very end. I enjoyed the details of the Count's and Sophia's escapes, and how he left goodbyes and gold coins to his hotel friends. I wondered how he and Anna could live in Russia without his detection, especially given the Count's thirst for interesting company and good food and wine. I assume that he had set up a way to communicate in the future with Sophia occasionally that was somewhat safe.

I enjoyed the novel very much, but was left with the lingering question of, is some of the graciousness a person can have lubricated to be easier with a supply or stash of money?

Those are great thoughts and questions Lyn and strangely things I didn't think about but now have me very curious! What are the logistics of exile in a hotel?!

Lyn wrote: "I wondered about money throughout, as the Count from beginning to end always ate luxury food and wine, with additional, assumed expensive, nightcaps in the bar (and Audruis at one point gives him an "on the house" splash, indicating that the Count otherwise paid in some fashion). How did the Count pay for his food and lodging? .."

I thought that when he was first confined to the room that he sold some of the coins to a Greek man (I don't have the book beside me), from which I assumed he got enough to carry him through. I did figure that his lodging was on the house, considering where they put him.

The job as the waiter I figured was a way to keep the boredom away, but I was surprised to see him 'come down' in that way.

Bryan wrote: "The job as the waiter I figured was a way to keep the boredom away, but I was surprised to see him 'come down' in that way...."

The count seemed to have that self dignity consistent with humility.

Lily wrote: "Bryan wrote: "The job as the waiter I figured was a way to keep the boredom away, but I was surprised to see him 'come down' in that way...."

The count seemed to have that self dignity consistent ..."

I loved the Count's interactions with people as a waiter and the relationships he forged over time.

Lyn wrote: "I enjoyed the novel very much..."

I did, too. The count was a delightful character creation to me -- a person to admire for his courtliness (in the sense of disciplined refinement and graciousness) under duress over an extended period of time. The figure had overtures of the best of elitism and the moral attributes that can be associated with servitude to others.

The timing of my first read has felt even a bit like standing on the beach at the shore and watching the Atlantic crash against the breakers. The presidential campaign rhetoric had been strong on the desirability of "improved" Soviet - U.S.A. relationships. Sort of in that light, my f2f book group leaned towards reading something about Russia -- and this book happened to hitting favorable publicity. Still find that intersection of news and book reading rather curious.

I have walked the charming Gramercy Park area of Manhattan where Towle lives and eaten at the Russian Tea Room, which is the site of one of the interviews to which Ami provides a link, if I remember correctly. Amor Towle was educated in some of America's most prestigious schools (google him), worked in investment banking, apparently has had access to comfortable cultured living, so it is fascinating to me that the "Gentleman in Moscow" has flowed from his pen. I contrast that strong character creation with the Guardian article from Rachel Cusk about the evolving place of character in today's fiction. (This is not the article by Cusk, but another, also in Guardian, where her views towards an author's role in (authentic) character creation is discussed: https://www.theguardian.com/books/201....)

In contrast to those musings, I was sideswiped a bit by this review on Amazon: (view spoiler)[ Amazon Customer
2.0 out of 5 stars A missed opportunity to be a truly great book
Reviewed in the United States on September 28, 2016
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase

"As a student of Russian history and traveler to Russia for more than 30 years, I was quite disappointed with this book. I simply could not suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy this. First of all, though the writing was eloquent and beautiful, this particular Gentleman is not Russian in thought, character or action. He is more British in nature or simply a "generic aristocrat." Even the descriptions and back story of his childhood are more descriptive of the English aristocracy than the Russian. Generally, the pre-revolutionary Russian Aristocracy was self-serving, corrupt and oppressive. The Revolution didn't happen because they were an enlightened, progressive bunch.

"Secondly, the story simply could not have happened. The Imperial Russian elite were hunted down and executed or fled the country in the late teens and early 20's. The Bolsheviks spared no one, let alone a aristocratic poet. They even slaughtered or drove to madness many of the poets and artists that supported the early regime. The Red Terror of the 20's and then the Great Purges in the 30's would not have spared anyone.

"Third, the relationship he had with Nina was impossible. Her association with one of the "Former People" would have resulted in catastrophe for her and her entire family early in the red Terror. She and her family would not have survived her association with him let alone allowing for any on-going relationship. She would never have lived to be old enough to have a child because of her association with the Count.. Even if I could buy into it, the relationship could have been a much greater vehicle for illustrating and allowing the reader to experience the dark brutal realities of life in early Soviet Union, the reprogramming of youth and the obsessive, no-cost-is-too-great attempt to build Communism. Association with the Count would have also been a death sentence for anyone else in the hotel, including the staff.

"Likewise the relationship and "English lessons" he had with the Bolshevik leader could not have happened. The General would have been purged and shot for simply associating with the Count. In a hotel like the Metropole nothing was secret and every secret was told to the regime. Nearly every employee was an informer just to survive. Someone would have noticed and informed on the Red General. And a Red General would never have placed himself in such a dangerous position by seeking out the Count.

"Fourth, the experience of WWII, The Great Patriotic War, is virtually ignored. The Battle of Moscow and the utter destruction of most of the city and the trauma to every Russian family is completely neglected. The experience of the War is key to the country and culture that emerged afterwards and is perhaps Russia's defining moment for generations to come.

"Finally, and very troublesome to me, is why did he wait 30 years to attempt an escape. Why is there no mention of any thoughts, attempts to escape or appeal his "house arrest?" Not once.

"The story of Russia in the 20th Century is a story of human tragedy and at the same time a story of human beauty, survival and endurance. It is one of the most tragic 100 years in the history of any nation or people on earth. In this book, revolutions, famines, terror, two world wars, utter destruction and the start of the Cold War are glossed over while the author spends endless pages on descriptions of dinners, meals and wine selections.

"The writing is amazing. The images that flow are lyrical and gorgeous. But this is a missed opportunity to be a truly great book. Frankly, Russia, in all its beauty and brutal history, deserves a better treatment. Readers deserve to know and experience the real journey of Russia in the first half of the 20th century. " (hide spoiler)]

And was fascinated to discover three other tidbits about this book tonight: 1) It is on Bill Gates list of top books in 2019. 2) The hard cover apparently contains historical notes painting more of the difficulties of the period. And 3) this charming (that word again in relationship to this novel) response to the review I quote in the previous post: (view spoiler)[
"Eclectic Reader1 year ago (Edited )"

"The review is very fair, very correct. A Gentleman in Moscow does not do justice to Russian history and certainly it glides over all the horrible events that occurred as a result of the Revolution and the suffering of the Russian people.

"But I still love this book, and I can find no one who notices that the story really is a story about something else significant--not about Russia, its history, and its tragedies.

"A Gentleman in Moscow is indeed a fairy story, but as we've learned from writers like C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Bruno Bettelheim, fairy stories are not simply frivolous tales for not-so-bright children.

"A Gentleman in Moscow IS about fate and inevitability and how we ought to meet those things that seem to guide and control our lives--people (like a child put in your care when you were never prepared for parenthood or an incompetent waiter who becomes manager of the hotel and is determined to crush the spirit of everyone under him) and events (like revolutions) that we have very little or no control over--with calm, gentleness, and as much wisdom, patience, and love we can muster. When those around us are carping, sniping, callous, cruel, and mindless, we need to be wise, patient, and clever, doing what is right--even shooting a malicious fool because he has dishonored his sister and since he is a gentleman should have behaved better.

"READ the events leading up this shooting and the events that result. They are (in this novel) inevitable. But see how Count Rostov faces up to them. It is touching and instructive.

"The key to the novel, I think, is Count Rostov's fascination with Montaigne--that great essayist, who seems to know about everything and cheerfully accepts all kinds of people, cultures, habits, societies, grand gestures, and foolish foibles, then learns from them and out of the complexity of life articulates simple insights and grows wiser.

"A Gentleman in Moscow is shallow historically but it has a good deal of human depth, teaching us at least a little about how to deal with the inevitable when the inevitable is not really to our liking. It is a great mistake to jump all over it and stomp on it because it does not portray Russian history accurately and because it does not handle the great tragedies suffered by so many, and then dismiss all the humanity and gentle wisdom this fairy tale offers. That's like cursing the moon because it is not the sun. It has its own glory, and it's quite wonderful." (hide spoiler)]

Lily wrote: "And was fascinated to discover three other tidbits about this book tonight: 1) It is on Bill Gates list of top books in 2019...."

Fact checking myself this morning, I found these two sites: https://bookriot.com/2019/07/19/bill-... and https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/10/billi....

According to the first site, AGIM was indeed on his Summer 2019 favorites list. (The source I used last night was Amazon's entry for AGIM.)

FINISHED!

It was as delightful on the second perusal as the first. I was left feeling as though The Importance of Being Earnest had just finished. It wasn't just a matter of seeing "Checkov's Gun" literally in action; there were a series of figurative Guns that had been set up in the earlier narrative (from the very first page, in fact) that were engaged, almost in sequence, as Part Four developed.

On the one hand, the determined, mannered narrative worked against the sense of risk as the action wound up; on the other hand, the feeling of parts clicking together was as satisfying as Oscar Wilde's play.

Quibbles: The narrative depends on two pieces of 21st century automation which I strongly suspect would NEVER have been in the Hotel Metropol. 1) Especially in the '20's, the elevators would have had liveried operators working the controls, greeting guests, and expertly guiding the cars to a smooth stop at each desired floor. Grand hotels are one of the few places where the breed has survived. 2) The Count's midnight diversion would have hit a choke point when the Metropol's human switchboard operators were faced with the flood of calls at midnight. Direct dialling wasn't a "thing" for a long time after 1954!

Finally, is anyone else bothered by the strange use of bold in the text? At least, toward the end, it is generally restricted to cases where the rest of the world uses italics, but it was the most distracting textural "tic" in the book for me.

Lyn wrote: " the lingering question of, is some of the graciousness a person can have lubricated to be easier with a supply or stash of money?

Yes, that was another of my lingering questions. The current movie Parasite explicitly states it. "Lubricate" is exactly the word I thought of as well.

Less crucial, but a little distracting, was that the Count was still using his improvised "bunk bed" arrangement when Sophia was 24! I would have thought he might have pressed one of the other disused lumber rooms into use as a second bedroom.

Mark wrote: "...I would have thought he might have pressed one of the other disused lumber rooms into use as a second bedroom...."

If I recall correctly, some specific discussion was included on the difficulty/impossibility of the count expanding beyond his given room. Been awhile, though, and I listened, not read.

On page 14, the Count's room is one of six bedrooms in the attic, "warehousing scraps of lumber, broken furniture, and other assorted debris.". After deducting the additional one the Count "borrows," that leaves four. Sophia's presence is accommodated by the hotel's management (from 1938 to 1954!!), on P424, at the end of "Ascending, Alighting." Why she wasn't granted one of the lumber rooms is slipped by the reader in the rush of years and plot developments.

A contributor to the sense of a mannered story are that all the chapter titles (as far as I checked) begin with "A"! Towles is having fun with us.

Lily wrote: "Lyn wrote: "I enjoyed the novel very much..."

I did, too. The count was a delightful character creation to me -- a person to admire for his courtliness (in the sense of disciplined refinement and ..."

Thank you so much for the review you shared in this post Lily. This was something that bothered me mostly at the beginning of reading this book, knowing that Amor Towles is not a Russian native or has any relation with Russia felt a bit disconnected with the real history of what happened in Moscow during the times. Even though in the end I did enjoy this book very much I did have to suspend disbelief and seeing it more like a fairy tale set in Russia than a true Russian tale.

Mark wrote: "A contributor to the sense of a mannered story are that all the chapter titles (as far as I checked) begin with "A"! Towles is having fun with us."

Yes! does anyone know why all the Chapters start with "A". And if you see the title of the book and the author's name also start with "A"!

Bryan wrote: "I finished this evening.

SPOILERS!

I enjoyed the book--I thought it was charming, actually--though by the end I started to feel as though there was perhaps a bit too much charm and a bit too lit..."

I was also hoping that the Count follow Sofia, it feels that she was the only reason that made him attempt an escape after all these years. I think that he could've got asylum as well if he was able to leave for Paris.

My feeling was that our Count ended up precisely where he wanted to be. He was asked several times why he had come back, and affirmed his choice. He'll miss Sophia, but she is well launched on her life.

He loved Russia too much to leave, I think. I loved the way the book was structured. Time moves quickly at first, then there are big gaps, and then it's a whirlwind again.

Tea73, Yes, the time jumps were startling at first, but they spoke their own language of his life.

Finished the book tonight. I loved it. An example of grace under pressure. I loved the writing and even though on the surface not a lot seems to happen there is great human depth and character and philosophy. In some ways I was reminded of Ishiguro’s ‘Remains of the Day. A beautiful read during at this season of hope and goodwill to all

Stephen, ha ha! How about a happy Ishiguro?

True. Only in some ways. Certainly in terms of the ending they are poles apart.

Stephen wrote: "A beautiful read during at this season of hope and goodwill to all ..."

Stephen -- any reaction to the divergent Amazon reviews I quote (as spoilers) @11 and @12 above? (view spoiler)[I dare ask because you appear to have kindly liked my review here on Goodreads. (hide spoiler)] This is a book that will probably always stand as a particular example for me of what is "fiction" and what is it fair to ask of (historical?) fiction writers.

I finished tonight (managed to finish right before the New Year) and thoroughly enjoyed it. It there is a minor quibble, it might be that there is are some elements of disbelief (as some have already mentioned) especially at the end where everything is a little too tidy and nice. But, I don't think the book is to be read a complete and total realistic novel. However, just a minor fault and I overwhelmingly really loved this book. It has a charming element/whimsical tone that reminded me a tad of The Night Circus (although this book is way way more realistic). I found the book to very impressive in its themes as well of overcoming one's circumstances.

Stephen, now that you mention it, this book did remind me a bit of Ishiguro in its themes of philosophy and human emotion/depth. I really loved The Remains of the Day as well, so maybe that is another reason I loved this book.

Lily wrote 'Stephen -- any reaction to the divergent Amazon reviews I quote (as spoilers) @11 and @12 above?'
I agree with the reviews in as much as the lack of historical depth. And for the first reviewer you quote that lack has been a missed opportunity. But it all depends on what the author is trying to do in telling the story and in this case the story of the Count. The second review I think has it spot on when he says the key to the novel is Count Rostov's fascination with Montaigne and his essays and philosophy. It also reminds me of the Apsotle Paul when in one of his epistles he writes ' I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

I also agree it is a mistake to 'fall out' with the novel because it does not portray Russian history accurately. It is a novel and 'has its own glory.'

The question you pose is interesting. Whose job would it be to answer that question - the editor? Or the author? Or the reader?

1950-Adagio, Adante, Allegro
Adaptation, making ends meet or meeting one’s end, moths and natural selection as it pertained to the characters in this novel- here, towards the end, Towles reminded me of how many times we sometimes have to reinvent ourselves in order to find passion and purpose in our lives.

1952-America
Russia was under great upheaval, once again, after the passing of Stalin and vetting Khurshchev for the position. There’s a lot of movement in this section, including a discussion between Rostov and Anna about moving to America. As great as it all sounds, it appears as if dear Count would really miss his conveniences from days of old (taking carriages from one party to the next, sleeping in till noon, a prepared breakfast tray), but in the end it was really the inconveniences that he thoroughly relished in (Nina, Sophia and Anna).

1953-Apostles & Apostates
Two notes here: Sophia willingly not wanting to leave the Metropol, she had created a prison of her own making as she’s deeply attached to Rostov and the life they had build living in the hotel.

Katerina, a once hopeful citizen of Russia now left hopeless after Mishka’s death, no longer able to comprehend the direction of the Bolshevik government. Both Mishka and Katerina served as a cautionary tale to those defeated by adversity, and unable to reinvent.

1954, Applause and Acclaim
Oh, this Bishop and his bureaucracy were stifling, the politics of the outside world had taken over the inside of the hotel, full-fledged. Sophia’s apprehension to traveling with the conservatory is understandable. The Count knew it stemmed from her attachment to him, but also knew she must be able to live her own life outside of the hotel. I wondered if it was too little, too late for him to now try untying himself from her. Shouldn’t he have taught her to be independent at a younger age?

Achilles Agonistes
An imminent escape is being planned and how exciting at that to read about it unfolding. As clever as the Count was, I was sure there would be a hiccup, or two. Who knows? Honestly, I don’t think he had it in him to go through with the plan, if it meant leaving Russia. I hoped to be wrong. I thought that he wouldn’t because of what he had said to Anna about a local lore from Nizhny Novgorod in Book 2, about the apple tree? Towles wrote,

…hidden deep within the forest was tree with apples as black as coal-and if you could find this tree and eat of its fruit, you could start your life anew…

So would you, the actress asked?

Would I what?

If you found that apple hidden in the forest, would you take a bite?

The Count put his glass on the table and shook his head. There’s certainly some allure to the idea of a fresh start; but how could I relinquish my memories of home, of my sister, of my school years? The Count gestured to the table. How could I relinquish my memory of this (121-122)?

I remembered this moment between the two, but I also recognized how much of the novel was dedicated to the Count and his difficulty in letting go of his past.

Arrivederci-Conclusion
I didn’t have much here, but the comic relief seemed undignified of the Count. Perhaps, what Towles was attempting to show was how the Count had truly shed all airs, officially; and, in that case, his comic sense would have been fine.

As the Count’s plan begins to unfold, the pieces slowly come together for the grand escape. While it was exciting to read about how all of the moving parts worked, I thought the role Osip played to be uncharacteristic of his post. Like the Count giving up information to the Americans, did Osip too see his big picture overshadow his loyalty to his country by not doing more to find the Count…was their friendship worth more to him? I had a feeling the Count wouldn’t leave Russia, but wouldn’t going back to his childhood home be the first place the authorities would go looking for him, even if they didn’t at the time? In the end, this was a most entertaining read with one of the most memorable characters in my literary history, Count Alexander Rostov. What a lovely character trajectory! I gave Amor Towles’ “AGIM,” ~3.5-golden stars.

Bryan wrote: "Interesting that just by chance, I happened to see someone's review for Christ Stopped at Eboli: The Story of a Year by Carlo Levi pop up on my home feed, and thought of the similariti..."

Bryan wrote: "I finished this evening.

SPOILERS!

I enjoyed the book--I thought it was charming, actually--though by the end I started to feel as though there was perhaps a bit too much charm and a bit too lit..."

though by the end I started to feel as though there was perhaps a bit too much charm and a bit too little substance
I noticed this as well, Bryan. The appeal of the Count may have lost his essence as he shed his past, to a degree. He's a newer version of himself, having to reinvent over time in order to survive his imprisonment. It's understandable his metamorphosis, like the moth in his father's story about natural selection; while both Katerina and Mishka a representation of the white moth, unable to adapt in its new environment.

Though it's been some time since I read Eboli, what strikes me as the difference between the two books was the narrator of Levi's book is different for his experience.
Thanks for this! I'm curious to read it now :)

Bretnie wrote: "Bryan wrote: "I enjoyed the book--I thought it was charming, actually--though by the end I started to feel as though there was perhaps a bit too much charm and a bit too little substance. I don't n..."

The novel had the opposite effect on me, Bretenie. I couldn't gloss over the history, the romantic tone not loud enough to where I was able to drown out the atrocities. In fact, the history is what I continued to focus on (be it pseudo-history), reading about characters like Mishka, Osip and Richard Vanderwhall-something and even Anna, driving the history forward.

Lyn wrote: "Having read this novel twice before, I didn't read along, so waited until now to offer my perspective. Here's the review I wrote:

I was pleasantly surprised to become captivated by this story. I'm..."

I've encountered discussion that wondered why the Count began work as a waiter immediately after deciding not to commit suicide.
It was realizing he lacked the characteristics inhabited by Anna the night she seduced him. She was a step ahead of him in a situation where, normally, he would be a step ahead. The Count, after leaving her room, was walking down a hallway feeling an emptiness envelop him. He recognized he was no longer as confident or passionate about his life while pursuing his objectives. Also, he didn't have any objectives. Anna embodied everything he was not -everything he experienced sharing a night of passion together- living as a prisoner in the hotel.

I also wondered and came to a tentative assumption that it was to support himself without using up his gold coins
I didn't think it had anything to do with money, he had enough plus some to survive. The Bolsheviks imprisoned him to the hotel for the rest of his life, why would they make him pay for his own sentence? Food and lodging were included in his sentence, I thought. They stripped him of his titles, the vast majority of his belongings became property of the government, would't they have also confiscated his gold coins if they had known about it? He worked to be purposeful, regaining confidence and a passion for life. You're right, however, the bartender did say "on the house." I thought he was just saying it as a gesture because it always appeared to be on the house, aside from the few times Rostov bought drinks for others.

I wondered how he and Anna could live in Russia without his detection, especially given the Count's thirst for interesting company and good food and wine. I assume that he had set up a way to communicate in the future with Sophia occasionally that was somewhat safe.
I had the same questions. I wasn't sure if the Count knew he was safe knowing Osip was head of the secret police and wouldn't come after him.

Bryan wrote: "Lyn wrote: "I wondered about money throughout, as the Count from beginning to end always ate luxury food and wine, with additional, assumed expensive, nightcaps in the bar (and Audruis at one point..."

Konstantin asks the Count perhaps you are looking for access for some...capital?

No, no, assured the Count with a shake of the head to emphasize that borrowing was not a habit of the Rostovs (24).

He gave Konstantin a single gold coin and three notes to be delivered, one to acquire linens and a pillow, the second to acquire four bars of his favorite soap, and a third note to purchase the mille-feuille (29).

I did figure that his lodging was on the house, considering where they put him.
me too

Mark wrote: "A contributor to the sense of a mannered story are that all the chapter titles (as far as I checked) begin with "A"! Towles is having fun with us."

yes! I noticed this earlier on. Perhaps, it was for Alexander, maybe even Amor?

Question

For those of you who have read "Rules of Civility," which character from "AGIM" makes an appearance in Towles' novel?

Tea73 wrote: "He loved Russia too much to leave, I think. I loved the way the book was structured. Time moves quickly at first, then there are big gaps, and then it's a whirlwind again."

Mark wrote: "Tea73, Yes, the time jumps were startling at first, but they spoke their own language of his life."

A note about the timeline came up in one of the other threads. I wanted to post what I had learned about it, here...

It was fascinating to consider A Gentleman in Moscow‘s “accordian structure” on the reader’s experience. Amor Towles discusses this on his website, explaining that,

From the day of the Count’s house arrest, the chapters advance by a doubling principal: one day after arrest, two days after, five days, ten days, three weeks, six weeks, three months, six months, one year, two years, four years, eight years, and sixteen years after arrest. At this midpoint, a halving principal is initiated with the narrative leaping to eight years until the Count’s escape, four years until, two years, one year, six months, three months, six weeks, three weeks, ten days, five days, two days, one day and finally, the turn of the revolving door.

He loved Russia too much to leave, I think.
Did he love it so much to commit an act of espionage against it? I am under the impression he could not leave because he was unable to “relinquish the memories and moments” he created while there. Towards the end, it became less about his love for his country, and more about his love for his daughter. He didn’t follow her because it would have crippled her own personal growth and newly found independence. He wanted for her a life outside of Russia, outside of the hotel, outside of him. Without her, he was able to live with the risks and uncertainty, if they were to exist.

Alright folks, I want to thank you so much for reading and discussing "AGIM."

I started you off with Tchaikovsky's "Nutcracker," and I'll leave with Soviet Soldiers Dancing to The Killers' "Mr. Brightside."

.

I wish you a wonderful New Year with plenty of great reading ahead of you!

Lyn wrote: "Having read this novel twice before, I didn't read along, so waited until now to offer my perspective. Here's the review I wrote:

I was pleasantly surprised to become captivated by this story. I'm..."

Lyn, I went back and re-read the last few sections and found the answer to my own question that I had posted in reply to your thought provoking commentary. I had written, I wasn't sure if the Count knew he was safe knowing Osip was head of the secret police and wouldn't come after him.
The answer is, Osip was charged with keeping track of certain men of interest; however at the end, he is the officer who said, round up the usual suspects, their Casablanca connection. Rostov knew Osip would never come after him, he was safe back in his childhood home! Makes the ending even more thrilling and tender, doesn't it?

I enjoyed this book a lot, and the group discussion is wonderful-- I don't have anything to add. I found the main characters in the book to be very charming and likeable, and the tone of the book was light and easy to read, but I was surprised how long it took me to read the book. When I started reading I thought I would finish the book in a day or two, but I felt that I was getting bogged down in the story, and was a bit reluctant to go back to the story. My favorite character in the book was the Hotel Metropol itself. I'm giving the book 4⭐ because I can't give it 3.5.

Yes, I was very happy to revisit this story. Ami's thoughts expanded my thinking about the story. Still bugged about the automatic elevators, though. Thank you all!

Suki wrote: "I enjoyed this book a lot, and the group discussion is wonderful-- I don't have anything to add. I found the main characters in the book to be very charming and likeable, and the tone of the book w..."

Suki, glad to read you were able to benefit from our discussion in here. Yes, I too noticed how the narrative didn’t read as smoothly as some of the preliminary chapters. I’m curious if it was intentional on Towles’ part, the imprisonment taking a toll on Rostov, taking a toll on the reader due to boredom? I did find myself bored by areas, it wasn’t any one thing. And, goodness YES-The Metropol itself was a scene stealer, often rivaling Rostov! Hopefully, the stars will align in our favor this year and we can read together again. Thanks for dropping by!

Mark wrote: "Yes, I was very happy to revisit this story. Ami's thoughts expanded my thinking about the story. Still bugged about the automatic elevators, though. Thank you all!"

That’s what I like to read, a discussion allowing us to think about scenarios/events/moments in various manners, enriching our own experience! Great insights about Towles’ women, by the way. I remember them well! ;)