Well! That was a wild ride. This book is not for those of you who hate non-linear, rambling, chaotic, surreal, fragmentary, stream-of-consciousness type of fiction. The "plot" is pretty insignificant and, by design, nonsensical. It's unsettling and satisfying at the same time. There was a moment in the middle when I thought it really had lost me, but after that ending (incredible!), thinking back, it makes a bit more sense ... sort of! But that's the point, I think.

Time Shelter is all about the human tendency to find comfort in the past. When the present is too incoherent, ominous, foreboding, the past is where  people find their shelter: 

The past and nostalgia may be comforting and helpful to individuals, but what happens when a whole society is imprisoned by the allure of the past, glorifying narratives that may or may not be "true"? 

The book is at its most disorientating when it zooms out, to society as a whole (well, European society). I think this was the part of the book that lost me. Apologies if this next paragraph ends up not making much sense. I'm trying to write without spoilers and it was already hard to follow in the book.

I understand that this part of the book was a critique on the European right-wing nationalism of today, and the tendency to use glorification of certain moments of the past, as a political tool in the present. But the way Gospodinov tried represent this tendency was truly outlandish, and I struggled to wrap my head round it. I can see how there are individuals or groups in society that latch onto certain points in the past (particularly, points in the 20th century) as quote-unquote "better" than today, but is that true for the majority of citizens? Especially those the most marginalised. I think "nostalgia", on this societal scale anyway, is actually quite unfamiliar to the marginalised. The 20th century was horrendous for the vast majority of them at various different points (maybe every point?), so wanting to do something quite like this, even just as a theoretical exercise, seems baffling to me.

Furthermore, there were definitely some historical and political references that went over my head, as well as numerous references to other literature. I can see a re-read of this in the future being useful, now I know the overriding theme of the book.

Personally, I think the book was most successful when it focused on individual stories. Either that of the narrator, or other unnamed characters he may or may not have met. I read, re-read, and wrote down so many wonderful passages from these parts of the book. A lot of difficult themes are covered; aging, illness, and death. This passage, on grief, as an example, felt very real to me:

I also love reading meta books on writing itself, so this book definitely scratched that itch for me.

All in all, an overwhelming read with a lot to process, and I can see my rating changing as I mull over the numerous ideas it presented. Very much recommended though, as I don't think I've ever read anything quite like it before.

the first 100 pages of this book were the best piece of literature I've read this year (or in a long time), then the story kind of lost itself in the middle (it felt like the author was trying to cram too much facts and reality into such an unrealistic small space) and then the ending almost managed to save the situation.

The audiobook narrator was hard to listen to and I often found myself zoning out. This was through no fault of the author or plot, simply the narrator causing the lack of interest. The parts I could focus on were captivating.

If I read this again I'd get the physical book and I think this would be a much better experience.

Our narrator and Gaustine open a Time Shelter, a safe space for those suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s in which they find themselves back in a room from their childhood. The stories heard from the residents of the Time Shelter bring us back in time to relive their memories. 

This book was fascinating to read with its rapidly shifting tales jumping through time and space. There was a slight element of fantasy with Gaustine seemingly travelling through time. 

It’s unclear, but this read to me as an exploration through the mind of an author and his character “Gaustine”. So much of what happens in this book was an allegory for historical events our narrator appeared to live through. Eventually, the author starts to age and seemingly suffers from dementia himself, causing the end of the novel to devolve quickly. The change from clear connections between tales at the start of the story, to disjointed stories by the end reflect the disconnected pathways in the mindset of one with dementia. 

I personally struggled with the written book and ended up switching to an audiobook after reading 60 pages. Definitely worth finishing reading as it’s a very well written book.

I cannot explain why I liked this book so much given there is very little plot she even less action. Yet I still sacrificed sleep to finish this tonight. I suppose I take Alzheimer’s more seriously because it runs on both sides of my family, and I like the idea of potentially resolving it by revisiting time.