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 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.

 I really wanted to actually finish this book - mainly because I was just so close to finishing it and it felt like I might as well push through. But eventually I gave up. Life's too short to read bad books, or those that probably aren't bad but are definitely dull and beyond my comprehension. This feels like a book that might be assigned in a class on post-World War II Europe. That's not a bad thing. If I'd been reading it with an instructor's guidance and through some sort of historical-critical lens, I might have had a chance at understanding what the heck was happening here. But without some additional guidance, it feels like something that Eastern Europeans who grew up in the 1970s-1980s would find relatable, funny, and/or true to life, but that I just didn't get as an American who grew up in the 2000s. And that definitely didn't help my enjoyment, because without that understanding this book is just dull. The initial concept, setting up rooms as if they're from previous decades as an experimental dementia treatment, was interesting. But the unnamed narrator kept going on long tangents about European history and attitudes, to the point where the entire Part 4 of the book is just a discussion of what year or decade the majority of people in each European country think is the best. There are also some weird and confusing elements that feel almost like they're trying to be magical realism but not quite succeeding, or maybe are metaphors that I just don't get. Either way, it all felt very boring and pointless. Or perhaps I just don't have enough context or background information or intelligence or something to understand the point. 

A great concept for a novel but slow and difficult to navigate.

The good: I really liked the concept of Time Shelter as a memory clinic "stuck in time" and the writing really vividly brought these historical periods to life.

The not-so-good: I just found it very very slow going and the writing and dialogue quite stilted and dry. Unfortunately it wasn't particularly enjoyable to read.

Definitely an interesting concept and setting but a slog.

Unexpected. 

I think the blurb of the book does not do it justice. I would say that what it was advertised as is not necessarily what the book is.

It took a while for me to get into this. It has a lot of history and politics in it. I was a little disappointed that more of it wasn’t about these ‘clinics of the past’. However, that’s likely from the poor description of what you’re picking up.

I like it. Particularly in the last third of the book. It hits you with an interesting development. It would probably be more appealing to a person with a greater appreciation for European history and politics.