Darwin8u's Reviews > The New York Trilogy
The New York Trilogy (New York Trilogy, #1-3)
by
by
“The story is not in the words; it's in the struggle.”
― Paul Auster, The New York Trilogy
REVIEW 1: City of Glass
An interesting PoMo novella. Auster's first novel/second book/first of his 'New York Trilogy', 'City of Glass' is simultaneously a detective novel, an exploration of the author/narrative dynamic, and a treatise on language. I liked parts, loved parts, and finished the book thinking the author had written something perhaps more interesting than important.
My favorite parts were the chapters where Auster (actual author Auster) through the narrator Quinn acting as the detective Auster explored Stillman's book: 'The Garden and the Tower: Early Visions of the New World'. I also enjoyed the chapter where Auster (character Auster) and Quinn (acting as detective Auster) explored Auster's (character Auster) Don Quixote ideas. Those chapters reminded me obliquely (everything in City of Glass is oblique) of Gaddis.
In the end, however, it all seemed like Auster had read Gaddis wanted to write a PoMo novel to reflect the confusing nature of the author/narrator/translator/editor role(s) of 'Don Quixote', set it all in Manhatten, and wanted to make the prose and story fit within the general framework of a detective novel. He pulled it off and it all kinda worked. I'll say more once I finish the next two of the 'New York Trilogy'.
REVIEW 2: Ghosts
An uncanny valley of Gaddis IMHO. 'Ghosts', the second book in Auster's 'New York Trilogy' reminds me what I both like and don't like about MFA writers. Often clever and grammatically precise but they don't say so much. If they were painters their perspective would be perfect and their posters would sell, but the pigment or texture or something between the edges is just missing that undercurrent of something to give a real shit about.
REVIEW 3: The Locked Room
Not much to add that I haven't already written in my reviews of Auster's first two 'New York Trilogy' novels. In 'The Locked Room' Auster dances with the same themes, with slightly different variations. The novellas are more brothers to each other instead of cousins. In a lot of ways he reminds me of an earlier generations' Dave Eggers. There is definitely a lot of talent latent in the guy. He certainly can write, but unlike Fitzgerald who was able to tell a similar themed story in his novels and still provide weight. I just didn't feel the gravity. It was like Camus couldn't really decide whether to kill the Arab, didn't know if he cared or not, so he just walked around and killed himself but made the Arab watch.
I don't know. That may not be right. I'll probably just delete this review anyway. Only Otis will read it and I've asked him to delete all my reviews he doesn't like anyway. How do I guarantee this? Well, I could talk about Otis. I could tell you that there are things about author Auster, unrelated to his books I just don't like (who lives in NY Anyway?). He is a bad behaving author (untrue). He keeps sending me his manuscripts and wants me to say nice things about his work (untrue). I don't know. Is Auster married? Maybe, I'll go and console his wife now.
― Paul Auster, The New York Trilogy
REVIEW 1: City of Glass
An interesting PoMo novella. Auster's first novel/second book/first of his 'New York Trilogy', 'City of Glass' is simultaneously a detective novel, an exploration of the author/narrative dynamic, and a treatise on language. I liked parts, loved parts, and finished the book thinking the author had written something perhaps more interesting than important.
My favorite parts were the chapters where Auster (actual author Auster) through the narrator Quinn acting as the detective Auster explored Stillman's book: 'The Garden and the Tower: Early Visions of the New World'. I also enjoyed the chapter where Auster (character Auster) and Quinn (acting as detective Auster) explored Auster's (character Auster) Don Quixote ideas. Those chapters reminded me obliquely (everything in City of Glass is oblique) of Gaddis.
In the end, however, it all seemed like Auster had read Gaddis wanted to write a PoMo novel to reflect the confusing nature of the author/narrator/translator/editor role(s) of 'Don Quixote', set it all in Manhatten, and wanted to make the prose and story fit within the general framework of a detective novel. He pulled it off and it all kinda worked. I'll say more once I finish the next two of the 'New York Trilogy'.
REVIEW 2: Ghosts
An uncanny valley of Gaddis IMHO. 'Ghosts', the second book in Auster's 'New York Trilogy' reminds me what I both like and don't like about MFA writers. Often clever and grammatically precise but they don't say so much. If they were painters their perspective would be perfect and their posters would sell, but the pigment or texture or something between the edges is just missing that undercurrent of something to give a real shit about.
REVIEW 3: The Locked Room
Not much to add that I haven't already written in my reviews of Auster's first two 'New York Trilogy' novels. In 'The Locked Room' Auster dances with the same themes, with slightly different variations. The novellas are more brothers to each other instead of cousins. In a lot of ways he reminds me of an earlier generations' Dave Eggers. There is definitely a lot of talent latent in the guy. He certainly can write, but unlike Fitzgerald who was able to tell a similar themed story in his novels and still provide weight. I just didn't feel the gravity. It was like Camus couldn't really decide whether to kill the Arab, didn't know if he cared or not, so he just walked around and killed himself but made the Arab watch.
I don't know. That may not be right. I'll probably just delete this review anyway. Only Otis will read it and I've asked him to delete all my reviews he doesn't like anyway. How do I guarantee this? Well, I could talk about Otis. I could tell you that there are things about author Auster, unrelated to his books I just don't like (who lives in NY Anyway?). He is a bad behaving author (untrue). He keeps sending me his manuscripts and wants me to say nice things about his work (untrue). I don't know. Is Auster married? Maybe, I'll go and console his wife now.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The New York Trilogy.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
June 17, 2013
– Shelved as:
to-read
June 17, 2013
– Shelved
October 2, 2013
–
Started Reading
October 2, 2013
– Shelved as:
100-mccaffery
October 4, 2013
– Shelved as:
2013
October 4, 2013
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)
date
newest »
Although Wood acknowledges Auster's writing is brisk and can be compelling and other book reviewers line up to review and rave about the latest Auster novel. One has the sense that Wood continually shakes his head and rolls his eyes as he reads Auster books.
He said a few things about The New York Trilogy, mostly about The City of Glass and how it relies on worn out themes and lines from a B movie. Unfortunately, he didn't say a word about Ghosts, which is, to my mind, the most provocative and thought-provoking of thee three, with all its playing with the dynamic of reading and writing within the context of a detective mystery.
Wood also said how The New York Trilogy has been read by thousands of readers who don't ordinarily read avant-garde fiction. That's me, in a way, as the NYT is the only Auster I've read and the books I wanted to cut my teeth on for postmodern. Actually, unlike Wood, I don't recall rolling my eyes once. I thought the books were both compelling and insightful.
Yes and Yes.
I think he (Auster) fits into a very crowded uncanny PoMo valley. Many of the post 70s MFA contemporary, experimentalist writers often rub me raw in the same spot. There is a definite technique and skill exhibited, but it just seems a bit too veneer with little soul or heart. Give me a wooden table or give me even a weird fucking plastic table, but don't make me praise the damn veneer table.
Still, I gave it 3 stars. Not because I didn't like it. I just think it is over-read and over-rated. It is good in the way a novel by Mark Leyner, or J.S. Foer, or Dave Eggers is "good". They are more popular than great. And, me thinks, their writing has a shelf-life/expiration date (Eggers might have a couple that are read in 100 years, maybe).
I think you are spot-on about all that cleverness. Mark Leyner is cool but a little bit of surface cool clever goes a long way. One big reason Ghosts was my favorite was that it was by far the shortest of the 3.
If I may share a personal note: I've started a novel in microchapters about, among other things, Derrida's The Truth of Painting. I find myself resisting the urge to be overly clever. It's too slick and too easy. Doing an examination of Derrida is more challenging but ultimately more rewarding for me and, I would hope, for a reader.
I think of structurally clever novels that worked for me (Ada, or Ardor: A Family Chronicle by Nabokov) and also those that don't work for me (The Luminaries by Catton) and figure that the structural cleverness is FINE if there is a structure that matters, IMHO. So don't be afraid of the frosting, just make sure the cake kicks ass.
I want to choke on my coffee too. But why?
//chokes on coffee Nice!