I loved the contrasting of Vanner & Mildred with Andrew & Ida. I also loved the earlier comparison of the relationship of Andrew and Mildred with Othello and Desdemona. I would argue that two other elements have to be recognized to grasp the full import of Mildred's diary:
1) the symbolism of Helen's mind being killed by her husband: if we read this book with the idea that the structure and every detail is essential to understanding it (similarly to the close attention we'd play in a short story) then the mentions of HV in Mildred's diary seems to strongly indicate that she was feeding him the story. In Andrew and Mildred's life together, despite their moments of affection, Andrew used her mind and took credit for her mind. If she is helping orchestrate the ending of Bonds, then she accurately predicts that Andrew will seek to erase the memory of her brilliant mind - which he seems to want to do in his descriptions of her to Ida and he literally does in obstructing the distribution of Bonds.
2) Mildred shows her code - her love for inversion of musical chords - in her diary. This begs us to read the story in the same way. Following Mildred's pattern, we should read the book's sections forward and then immediately backward. :)
Further: there are two separate narratives in part 3. I haven't yet seen anyone mention this. Ida's memoir is written in print. The italic sections - even numbered differently - seem to be a "current" Ida narrating. This seems to be an outside perspective (the others being something written down at some point in time). Interestingly, this could suggest that this other Ida voice is the overall narrator for the story. Since we must be careful not to conflate Diaz with the narrator "organizing" the book, the structure allows us to wonder who is presenting these narratives to us. Keeping in mind that Ida was the one person who deciphered Mildred's inverted code, this could suggest that the current Ida has arranged the narratives according to Mildred's cipher. (which would then support the idea that Mildred informed and help direct the writing of Bonds)
A couple fun notes: the book Trust is titled Fortuna in the Spanish translation - this would seem to indicate that Trust should be taken in the money sense, not in the relational sense. It further suggests this book is someone's trust, or legacy. ALSO, the musical notes are written in solfege for Spanish readers, which makes so much more sense and enables the reader to "feel" the crescendo and decrescendo Mildred sees in the world.
Is Mildred a genius? Define “genius”. Because to me, she read more like the poster above said: neurodivergent? Austistc? Narcissistic? Sociopathic? Sure she sees patterns that no one else does; why is that genius? My brother insists that you can divide all the world into “odds” and “evens” - literally everything. My kids used to try and “stump” him - but
the “pattern”, or paradigm, exists only in his head. He’s never “wrong”. That’s a silly example, but the principle is there - is she seeing a pattern or creating a pattern that one she understands?
I think the same
Thing applies with her understanding of Schoenberg; the rules are all broken, it’s up to the listener to pull order out of chaos. When you make the rules, you never break them - you just make new rules to “fix” it. That’s not genius, I don’t think.
Well she caused The Crash, so that’s certainly real enough. But I wonder if that’s just a crossing of paths - her reality crossed with ours at one catastrophic point. She’s in a nutshell, declaring herself the king of infinite space; but the nut got thrown into the spokes of the wheel of reality.
I think she admits to causing the crash, but doesn't she also indicate that she saw with all the playing the market and rising inflation, that a crash was inevitable so she was "getting ahead".
I don't see her "admitting" to causing the crash but rather foreseeing it. Thus, I agree, that she was just "getting ahead." Either I missed something or our hosts did regarding causing the crash
You're right - I think she may have caused the crash to occur earlier than it would have otherwise, but the crash would have occurred at some point, even without her interference. It's hard for me to see how anyone would consider her a villain - she was brilliant and an amazing businesswoman.
I can't see how getting ahead in business would be equivalent with being a sociopath...there isn't really any evidence in the story of her being unjust or even unethical, unless we want to establish the premise that everything stock-related is unethical...
Was this a big reveal for everyone? Did nobody see the Mildred component coming, especially after Ida started observing Andrew talking foolishly and his descriptions of Mildred's simplicity not jiving with the room decor, music interest, etc?
I had two expectations of the last book - to confirm that Mildred helped with the buying and selling, and to find out who collaborated with Vanner - Mildred or Andrew.
On bell jars, feminism, and the big bad (strike that) Woolf:
Bell jars are shaped like a dome. They are often used in labs to form and contain a vacuum; they can also serve as glass display cases.
In Sylvia Plath's "The Bell Jar," the bell jar symbolizes madness. One summary says, "When gripped by insanity, [Esther] feels as if she is inside an airless jar that distorts her perspective on the world and prevents her from connecting with the people around her."
Bell jars (literal and figurative) in "Trust":
"... She spotted a table on which ... stood a glass dome with a device that she initially mistook for a clock or a barometer but was, she soon realized, a stock ticker." (60)
" 'Money is, as Marx said, the god among commodities. And that,' his upturned palm drew an arc encompassing downtown Manhattan, 'is its holy city.' " (219)
" '... If money is the god among commodities, this,' with my upturned palm I drew an arc that encompassed the office and suggested the building beyond it, 'is its high temple.' " (226) That's good, but strike it.
"A bell in a bell jar won't ring" (402)
Mildred writes about reading the new Woolf. Farther down the same page: "I'm Adam, Eve. Mad, am I?" (384) Pages later, a possible connection to Woolf: "Overheard: 'She forgot to swim.'" (392)
"[Woolf] dislikes the possessiveness and love of domination in men. In fact she dislikes the quality of masculinity; says that women stimulate her imagination, by their grace & their art of life." - diary of Vita Sackville-West
It seemed like no one liked Mildred other than Heidi before this conversation. I didn’t much like her either. Heidi, when you say you “like” a character does it mean the person is “good” or just well-written and intriguing? In fact, I didn’t like any of the characters in this book very much. When I say “like”, I think I might be saying that I wouldn’t want any of my family members to marry them. Lol. I am trying to figure out why I like some characters and not others. Anyway, the meta-fiction action is the fun thing about this book. Seems like there was a chapter in Sophie’s world that goes meta. The movie Russian Ark also has a meta quality. Thanks for bringing this book to Close Reads. Good times.
That’s a great question! Sometimes I mean that I “like” the character as a person, sometimes it means that I have sympathy for him/her, and sometimes it means that I find him/her well-written and intriguing as a literary creation. In this case, it’s the second and the third.
Come along with me down my rabbit hole for a moment...so, I have an autistic child who has a great deal of visual talent and also has perfect pitch. When I read part one, Benjamin Rask very quickly struck me as autistic (someone else also mentioned this in another comment, maybe on the Q&A,saying he seemed not neurotypical). But then I had the same feeling about Mildred in part four, especially her ability to see patterns and her naming the notes of the bells. So then I thought, Benjamin is more of the Mildred character than Helen is. So is HV writing it that way? Or did Mildred write it that way?? Is Mildred destroying herself through the character of Helen? Is this some sort of multiple personality Fight Club thing? All of this to say...I think David should share all of his most outlandish theories for the book, maybe in rapid fire, at the end of the q&a. If his voice gets higher and more urgent the further he gets into it, all the better. 😃
Maybe this says more about me (like y'all have mentioned), but I think, just like in other sections of the book, Mildred as the narrator of part 4 is lying to herself about her motivations for her actions. In my read, the entirety of her desire for manipulating the market (perhaps only after the initial curiosity) is because she wants the power in her and Andrew's marriage. She can manipulate both him AND the money so easily; it's a game, it's a strategy she can use her genius on, it's a clear focus in what constitutes their relationship, each of them constantly telling themselves they're wresting power from the other. She's not interested in the outward expression of power, like Andrew is. She's interested in holding the power over him -- proving to him time and time again that the slightest mention from her can move mountains, and he will go back and realize that all "his" decisions were hers, even if he didn't know it at the time. I believe that's why she mentions "hiding" her journals from Andrew by using shorthand -- if he goes to the effort to decode them after she's dead, she'll have won a final victory over him that he can never wrest back from her, especially if him decoding the journals means he finally finds out that Mildred conspired with Vanner to write Bonds.
I love this comment! I agree. Furthermore, while I love what Heidi said about Mildred’s need to “finish” the patterns she sees, I think Mildred is taking that need and using it for power over the world. She’s full of vengeance and spite, and she uses her gifts in that service. She clearly trusts - unwaveringly - in her own power to perceive a pattern and follow it to its conclusion. But why should we trust her? She is a master manipulator - she has manipulated the market, her husband, the public…is she manipulating us? Is that a little *too* meta? 😂
I think Mildred is playing 3D chess, and to be sure her bell notes motif…inverting and transposing the response is evidence of that. Her short-selling in the market may also be a clue to her actions. Short selling is a perversion of the market and is done when you assume a stock is going to lose value. She also enters into a “shorts” type contract with HV to create the inversion/transposing world-Bevel is Helen, Mildred is Rask. She is betting on Andrew’s decline after she’s dead and out of the picture. In a short you get out by buying the position you sold to enter it. Bevel buys out HV’s literary stock to close the position. Shortly after, he does end up dying of a heart attack, just as Helen dies of a heart failure in Bonds.
My favorite was the discussion of Mildred & music, thank you, Tim. I took the page with the notes to my Music Theory friend, to see if there was a classical pattern Mildred was tapping into. He said no, which would support the modern music theory. Or simply that she's brilliant. Or a little crazy. Or both.
I think this book invites us to think about madness and genius.
This was such a great discussion. Thank you! The was my first time reading along with you all (and my first time reading Trust) and I absolutely loved the experience! I think I would have enjoyed the book regardless but your discussion really deepened my enjoyment and appreciation for the book. I will be reading along more often!
Agree, this was so great! Reading along was really fun, but I had to rush to read part four because I got so excited after the part three episode. Then I got workshops that it would be all the way until Monday before I could hear th so excited after the part three episode. Then I was super sad. I had to wait until Monday to hear the part 4 discussion. When the episode dropped early, it was like a Christmas present!
This was my second reading of Trust also and it was so much more enjoyable with your discussions. Close Reads has completely changed my reading. Love it!
Wow! The revelations of part four make it feel mandatory to read Trust a second time (because I have all the time in the world). Otherwise it feels like I've only half-read the book.
Loved the great discussion on this podcast, especially the parts centering around Mildred's involvement (or complicity) in the writing of Bonds. I appreciate the fact that Diaz credits the reader with intelligence and leaves us with loose ends to contemplate, instead of tying everything up in a neat bow. He trusts the reader -- it's a two-way street. :)
I feel so conflicted listening to discussions about Kristin Lavransdatter and Trust at the same time. Each episode seems like it's the best discussion you've ever had, and then I listen to the next part of the other one and think, "No, this is the best." Loved Trust the first time I read it, but appreciated these discussions so much. The best!
Just saw “Bevel” Is the make of the itinerant preacher in O’Connor’s The River who challenges the main character to choose between good and evil…
And the main character lies that his name is Bevel
“When I hear the stock market has fallen,
I say, ‘Long live gravity!…”
— Wendell Berry (and Mildred Bevel)
I loved the contrasting of Vanner & Mildred with Andrew & Ida. I also loved the earlier comparison of the relationship of Andrew and Mildred with Othello and Desdemona. I would argue that two other elements have to be recognized to grasp the full import of Mildred's diary:
1) the symbolism of Helen's mind being killed by her husband: if we read this book with the idea that the structure and every detail is essential to understanding it (similarly to the close attention we'd play in a short story) then the mentions of HV in Mildred's diary seems to strongly indicate that she was feeding him the story. In Andrew and Mildred's life together, despite their moments of affection, Andrew used her mind and took credit for her mind. If she is helping orchestrate the ending of Bonds, then she accurately predicts that Andrew will seek to erase the memory of her brilliant mind - which he seems to want to do in his descriptions of her to Ida and he literally does in obstructing the distribution of Bonds.
2) Mildred shows her code - her love for inversion of musical chords - in her diary. This begs us to read the story in the same way. Following Mildred's pattern, we should read the book's sections forward and then immediately backward. :)
Further: there are two separate narratives in part 3. I haven't yet seen anyone mention this. Ida's memoir is written in print. The italic sections - even numbered differently - seem to be a "current" Ida narrating. This seems to be an outside perspective (the others being something written down at some point in time). Interestingly, this could suggest that this other Ida voice is the overall narrator for the story. Since we must be careful not to conflate Diaz with the narrator "organizing" the book, the structure allows us to wonder who is presenting these narratives to us. Keeping in mind that Ida was the one person who deciphered Mildred's inverted code, this could suggest that the current Ida has arranged the narratives according to Mildred's cipher. (which would then support the idea that Mildred informed and help direct the writing of Bonds)
A couple fun notes: the book Trust is titled Fortuna in the Spanish translation - this would seem to indicate that Trust should be taken in the money sense, not in the relational sense. It further suggests this book is someone's trust, or legacy. ALSO, the musical notes are written in solfege for Spanish readers, which makes so much more sense and enables the reader to "feel" the crescendo and decrescendo Mildred sees in the world.
I hope it’s not too late to post a question!
Is Mildred a genius? Define “genius”. Because to me, she read more like the poster above said: neurodivergent? Austistc? Narcissistic? Sociopathic? Sure she sees patterns that no one else does; why is that genius? My brother insists that you can divide all the world into “odds” and “evens” - literally everything. My kids used to try and “stump” him - but
the “pattern”, or paradigm, exists only in his head. He’s never “wrong”. That’s a silly example, but the principle is there - is she seeing a pattern or creating a pattern that one she understands?
I think the same
Thing applies with her understanding of Schoenberg; the rules are all broken, it’s up to the listener to pull order out of chaos. When you make the rules, you never break them - you just make new rules to “fix” it. That’s not genius, I don’t think.
Well she caused The Crash, so that’s certainly real enough. But I wonder if that’s just a crossing of paths - her reality crossed with ours at one catastrophic point. She’s in a nutshell, declaring herself the king of infinite space; but the nut got thrown into the spokes of the wheel of reality.
I think she admits to causing the crash, but doesn't she also indicate that she saw with all the playing the market and rising inflation, that a crash was inevitable so she was "getting ahead".
I don't see her "admitting" to causing the crash but rather foreseeing it. Thus, I agree, that she was just "getting ahead." Either I missed something or our hosts did regarding causing the crash
You're right - I think she may have caused the crash to occur earlier than it would have otherwise, but the crash would have occurred at some point, even without her interference. It's hard for me to see how anyone would consider her a villain - she was brilliant and an amazing businesswoman.
That’s a good point. If so, Is she simply justifying her actions? Does taking advantage of a catastrophe make her a sociopath?
I can't see how getting ahead in business would be equivalent with being a sociopath...there isn't really any evidence in the story of her being unjust or even unethical, unless we want to establish the premise that everything stock-related is unethical...
Was this a big reveal for everyone? Did nobody see the Mildred component coming, especially after Ida started observing Andrew talking foolishly and his descriptions of Mildred's simplicity not jiving with the room decor, music interest, etc?
I had two expectations of the last book - to confirm that Mildred helped with the buying and selling, and to find out who collaborated with Vanner - Mildred or Andrew.
On bell jars, feminism, and the big bad (strike that) Woolf:
Bell jars are shaped like a dome. They are often used in labs to form and contain a vacuum; they can also serve as glass display cases.
In Sylvia Plath's "The Bell Jar," the bell jar symbolizes madness. One summary says, "When gripped by insanity, [Esther] feels as if she is inside an airless jar that distorts her perspective on the world and prevents her from connecting with the people around her."
Bell jars (literal and figurative) in "Trust":
"... She spotted a table on which ... stood a glass dome with a device that she initially mistook for a clock or a barometer but was, she soon realized, a stock ticker." (60)
" 'Money is, as Marx said, the god among commodities. And that,' his upturned palm drew an arc encompassing downtown Manhattan, 'is its holy city.' " (219)
" '... If money is the god among commodities, this,' with my upturned palm I drew an arc that encompassed the office and suggested the building beyond it, 'is its high temple.' " (226) That's good, but strike it.
"A bell in a bell jar won't ring" (402)
Mildred writes about reading the new Woolf. Farther down the same page: "I'm Adam, Eve. Mad, am I?" (384) Pages later, a possible connection to Woolf: "Overheard: 'She forgot to swim.'" (392)
"[Woolf] dislikes the possessiveness and love of domination in men. In fact she dislikes the quality of masculinity; says that women stimulate her imagination, by their grace & their art of life." - diary of Vita Sackville-West
Add more anecdotes about cocker spaniels.
Another bell jar / dome- the one on the cover.
It seemed like no one liked Mildred other than Heidi before this conversation. I didn’t much like her either. Heidi, when you say you “like” a character does it mean the person is “good” or just well-written and intriguing? In fact, I didn’t like any of the characters in this book very much. When I say “like”, I think I might be saying that I wouldn’t want any of my family members to marry them. Lol. I am trying to figure out why I like some characters and not others. Anyway, the meta-fiction action is the fun thing about this book. Seems like there was a chapter in Sophie’s world that goes meta. The movie Russian Ark also has a meta quality. Thanks for bringing this book to Close Reads. Good times.
That’s a great question! Sometimes I mean that I “like” the character as a person, sometimes it means that I have sympathy for him/her, and sometimes it means that I find him/her well-written and intriguing as a literary creation. In this case, it’s the second and the third.
Come along with me down my rabbit hole for a moment...so, I have an autistic child who has a great deal of visual talent and also has perfect pitch. When I read part one, Benjamin Rask very quickly struck me as autistic (someone else also mentioned this in another comment, maybe on the Q&A,saying he seemed not neurotypical). But then I had the same feeling about Mildred in part four, especially her ability to see patterns and her naming the notes of the bells. So then I thought, Benjamin is more of the Mildred character than Helen is. So is HV writing it that way? Or did Mildred write it that way?? Is Mildred destroying herself through the character of Helen? Is this some sort of multiple personality Fight Club thing? All of this to say...I think David should share all of his most outlandish theories for the book, maybe in rapid fire, at the end of the q&a. If his voice gets higher and more urgent the further he gets into it, all the better. 😃
Maybe this says more about me (like y'all have mentioned), but I think, just like in other sections of the book, Mildred as the narrator of part 4 is lying to herself about her motivations for her actions. In my read, the entirety of her desire for manipulating the market (perhaps only after the initial curiosity) is because she wants the power in her and Andrew's marriage. She can manipulate both him AND the money so easily; it's a game, it's a strategy she can use her genius on, it's a clear focus in what constitutes their relationship, each of them constantly telling themselves they're wresting power from the other. She's not interested in the outward expression of power, like Andrew is. She's interested in holding the power over him -- proving to him time and time again that the slightest mention from her can move mountains, and he will go back and realize that all "his" decisions were hers, even if he didn't know it at the time. I believe that's why she mentions "hiding" her journals from Andrew by using shorthand -- if he goes to the effort to decode them after she's dead, she'll have won a final victory over him that he can never wrest back from her, especially if him decoding the journals means he finally finds out that Mildred conspired with Vanner to write Bonds.
I love this comment! I agree. Furthermore, while I love what Heidi said about Mildred’s need to “finish” the patterns she sees, I think Mildred is taking that need and using it for power over the world. She’s full of vengeance and spite, and she uses her gifts in that service. She clearly trusts - unwaveringly - in her own power to perceive a pattern and follow it to its conclusion. But why should we trust her? She is a master manipulator - she has manipulated the market, her husband, the public…is she manipulating us? Is that a little *too* meta? 😂
I think Mildred is playing 3D chess, and to be sure her bell notes motif…inverting and transposing the response is evidence of that. Her short-selling in the market may also be a clue to her actions. Short selling is a perversion of the market and is done when you assume a stock is going to lose value. She also enters into a “shorts” type contract with HV to create the inversion/transposing world-Bevel is Helen, Mildred is Rask. She is betting on Andrew’s decline after she’s dead and out of the picture. In a short you get out by buying the position you sold to enter it. Bevel buys out HV’s literary stock to close the position. Shortly after, he does end up dying of a heart attack, just as Helen dies of a heart failure in Bonds.
My favorite was the discussion of Mildred & music, thank you, Tim. I took the page with the notes to my Music Theory friend, to see if there was a classical pattern Mildred was tapping into. He said no, which would support the modern music theory. Or simply that she's brilliant. Or a little crazy. Or both.
I think this book invites us to think about madness and genius.
This was such a great discussion. Thank you! The was my first time reading along with you all (and my first time reading Trust) and I absolutely loved the experience! I think I would have enjoyed the book regardless but your discussion really deepened my enjoyment and appreciation for the book. I will be reading along more often!
Agree, this was so great! Reading along was really fun, but I had to rush to read part four because I got so excited after the part three episode. Then I got workshops that it would be all the way until Monday before I could hear th so excited after the part three episode. Then I was super sad. I had to wait until Monday to hear the part 4 discussion. When the episode dropped early, it was like a Christmas present!
Sorry, writing on my phone is hard
This was my second reading of Trust also and it was so much more enjoyable with your discussions. Close Reads has completely changed my reading. Love it!
Wow! The revelations of part four make it feel mandatory to read Trust a second time (because I have all the time in the world). Otherwise it feels like I've only half-read the book.
Loved the great discussion on this podcast, especially the parts centering around Mildred's involvement (or complicity) in the writing of Bonds. I appreciate the fact that Diaz credits the reader with intelligence and leaves us with loose ends to contemplate, instead of tying everything up in a neat bow. He trusts the reader -- it's a two-way street. :)
Absolutely! Great way of putting it. I love that he lets you live in it to whatever degree you want to, and any reading can be rewarded.
BTW, thanks for leaving Wilson's "Odyssey" behind the counter in the shop -- so excited!
I feel so conflicted listening to discussions about Kristin Lavransdatter and Trust at the same time. Each episode seems like it's the best discussion you've ever had, and then I listen to the next part of the other one and think, "No, this is the best." Loved Trust the first time I read it, but appreciated these discussions so much. The best!
Speaking of Radiohead and Russian nesting dolls the 01 10 theory of Ok Computer and In Rainbows is pretty crazy.
YES! And I’m completely here for it!