The design and UX isn't done, Rob and Abbie, okkurrrr! 😌
chromathilda's review against another edition
emotional
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
ninfane's review against another edition
2.0
Éste libro es la versión literaria del diálogo de Michael Scott en The Office "Sometimes I'll start a sentence, and I don't even know where it's going. I just hope I find it along the way"
kelseyann's review against another edition
3.0
It's a dude book. Most of Paul Auster's are, but normally the plot can carry me along gently. However, this one was exceptionally a book for dudes, and I just kept washing up on the rocks of "Really?", "Seriously?", and "Deep sigh".
jz3532's review against another edition
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
tomhill's review against another edition
4.0
This is a strange book in many ways, and also reminded me of the later, shorter novels of Philip Roth, as this book mainly deals with a seemingly good natured but emotionally volatile young man, and tells his story as a story within a story. At the center of this book is a very taboo relationship and that's going to be a problem for a lot of readers I suspect. It's a very readable book, but in the end I'm not entirely sure I've wrapped my mind around the point Auster is making. So much of the book is about guilt and perception and memory, but Auster doesn't quite drive the point home the way Roth did in books like Indignation or Nemesis. Invisible is fascinating, not for everyone, and refuses to announce its conclusion too loudly.
borumi's review against another edition
5.0
A fast paced read, even for Auster fans. The book consists of four short chapters and they demonstrate the author's capacity in narrative diversity. The various versions told from different perspectives and the subtle drops of nuances make us doubt both the veracity of the narrator, the second-hand narrator and the listener as well.
The story reminded me of John Fowles' The Magus in many ways. It's not just the mysterious Mephistophelian Rudoph against the strugging yet ambitious Adam aspect. The younger liberal generation's revulsion against the older generation's empire constructed upon their hypocritical conservative philosophy ironically is set close to their dependence on the old regime: Adam and Margot's dependence on their parents or on Rudolph, Cecile's reliance on the black servants' help, etc. Cecile's 'escape' from Rudoph's domain is accentuated by the prisoner-like labor of the impoverished, colonized people as if she can't deny or run away from the ugly truth hammering on the Western civilization's conscience. As much as Adam would like to rectify or exonerate himself from many wrong or tragic or just some secret desires from which he wants to escape from (not only the boy's death but also other ghosts from his past like his brother or sister or parents or Margot or Cecile) by working as a new man he cannot fully escape or rest in peace before he gives a full sacrament of penance through his memoir. Ironically, his antagonist Rudoph also wants to write his own memoir to clean out his guts, but suggests it to be in fictional form to evade the aftermath (sort of like Gwyn, who seems to be hiding something as well).
It also gave me an insight to how much novelists may be spilling out their own lives in their novels albeit in faux-names. Paul Auster, is a jewish American who studied in Paris and worked a poet and translator before becoming a novelist. He has a sister as well and his parents' marriage problems were one of the reasons why he wanted to 'escape' to university. I believe he is not a Zionist and he is very liberal in his political views.
To grasp at the truth and beauty whether through our lives or through our work is hopeful at best and we struggle to escape from the ugly reality and our 'invisible' secrets and desires. Whether fiction or non-fiction, we all try to reveal or conceal our stories in the best way we can for our own existence. Although we hide ourselves behind our stories, we hope that our stories will keep us from becoming truly invisible even after we are gone.
This book could be read in one sitting and some may be put off by its abrupt ending, but it keeps you thinking after it's over and that's one of the most redeeming qualities of this book. It's the untold story that conjures up other stories and the invisible realm that may reveal something more about our visible reality.
The story reminded me of John Fowles' The Magus in many ways. It's not just the mysterious Mephistophelian Rudoph against the strugging yet ambitious Adam aspect. The younger liberal generation's revulsion against the older generation's empire constructed upon their hypocritical conservative philosophy ironically is set close to their dependence on the old regime: Adam and Margot's dependence on their parents or on Rudolph, Cecile's reliance on the black servants' help, etc. Cecile's 'escape' from Rudoph's domain is accentuated by the prisoner-like labor of the impoverished, colonized people as if she can't deny or run away from the ugly truth hammering on the Western civilization's conscience. As much as Adam would like to rectify or exonerate himself from many wrong or tragic or just some secret desires from which he wants to escape from (not only the boy's death but also other ghosts from his past like his brother or sister or parents or Margot or Cecile) by working as a new man he cannot fully escape or rest in peace before he gives a full sacrament of penance through his memoir. Ironically, his antagonist Rudoph also wants to write his own memoir to clean out his guts, but suggests it to be in fictional form to evade the aftermath (sort of like Gwyn, who seems to be hiding something as well).
It also gave me an insight to how much novelists may be spilling out their own lives in their novels albeit in faux-names. Paul Auster, is a jewish American who studied in Paris and worked a poet and translator before becoming a novelist. He has a sister as well and his parents' marriage problems were one of the reasons why he wanted to 'escape' to university. I believe he is not a Zionist and he is very liberal in his political views.
To grasp at the truth and beauty whether through our lives or through our work is hopeful at best and we struggle to escape from the ugly reality and our 'invisible' secrets and desires. Whether fiction or non-fiction, we all try to reveal or conceal our stories in the best way we can for our own existence. Although we hide ourselves behind our stories, we hope that our stories will keep us from becoming truly invisible even after we are gone.
This book could be read in one sitting and some may be put off by its abrupt ending, but it keeps you thinking after it's over and that's one of the most redeeming qualities of this book. It's the untold story that conjures up other stories and the invisible realm that may reveal something more about our visible reality.
akhuseby's review against another edition
5.0
I had to take a bit of time to think about this book before I wrote a review. Part of me wants to give it five stars because I felt compelled to read it and not put it down. It was totally a book that sucked me in. It feels autobiographical and confessional, but we'll get to that. The other part of me feels like it only rates a 4/4.5 stars because much of the book could be read as the ultimate male sexual fantasy. First, Walker encounters Margot, who is "a cipher, an utter blank" (28), and he proceeds to have fantastic sex with her for a week, an affair actually, though we are told that Walker is supposedly "a person of deep moral integrity, a pillar of moderation" (41). Or rather, we are told third hand. Born tells Walker that is sources tell him that Walker is such a person. This is a good example of the convulutions in this novel.
What Auster has really done here is create a meditation on authorship. Who wrote these stories? Is Auster James Freeman? (Before you answer that question, read Auster's bio and then read this book. It could be Auster's life: went to Columbia, year in Paris, returned to Columbia, all in the years that book takes place). Did Walker have a torrid, incestuous relationship with his sister or was that just another male sexual fantasy as his sister claims? Freeman openly acknowledges that he fleshed out the third section of the book from fragmentary notes, which adds another level of questions about authorship. As a piece of literature, this book would make an excellent discussion piece for a critical theory class who wanted to delve into all those lovely deconstruction questions about whether the author matters or whether we are just making signs that are interpreted by each reader differently, etc.
Moving on from that morass of twistiness, there are the clear borrowings or nods to Goethe's Faust. Anyone who's read Faust must certainly recognize Mephistopheles in Born. There are all the references to Dante's Inferno and the author Bertran de Born that Walker connects with Born from the start. So already we have this walk, ever deeper into the lacuna coil of what may or may not be Walker's imagination. He seems to know everything. His manipulations always lead to the most wicked places, including murder and affairs. Margot in contrast is called an "angel" (27). Walker says that his family was "blessed with the genes of angels" (78). Interestingly, Auster also creates Walker as a man "born sterile" (86). Why? What was the point of that? One possible suggestion would be that angels are androgynous and incapable of procreation. And Lucifer (Satan/Mephisto) was an angel, which leads me to my thoughts about the title of the book.
There are so many subtle ways that Auster uses the word "invisible" in this book. The first time is in this quote: "vanity-that invisible cauldron of self-regard and ambition that simmers and burns in each one of us" (15). Vanity was Lucifer's sin. He thought he was as good or better than God. Walker similar speaks of his "insufferable human perfection" (78). Then there is the invisibility of the "actual" author. Many of the characters are described as invisible or not quite there (cf. Margot's description above). There is the invisible murderer who may or may not have killed the boy in the park (which may or may not be Born). There is the long dead little brother, who is present but invisible as both Walker and Gwyn celebrate his birthday annually and make up a life for him that he's never lived. Also, there is this quote from Oppen:
Impossible to doubt the world: it can be seen
And because it is irrevocable
It cannot be understood, and I believe that fact is lethal. (182).
In other words, if something is invisible, you can doubt it, as you'll find yourself doing with most of this book. But it's delicious doubt, the kind of doubt that makes you want to turn around and reread the book again (another reason for wanting to give it 5 stars). And these are just a few uses of the idea of invisibility.
Add to this the theme of morality. Auster consistently sets up these situations for his characters where the morality is in a great big grey area. So, in a sense, the morality itself is invisible. It's neither here nor there. When Born stabbed the young man under the bridge, was he right to do so because he was defending himself and Walker or was he a brutal murderer who returned to the park later and stabbed the kid 12 more times for fun? When Walker and Margot have their sex bender, is it an affair, or is it just an interlude between two consenting adults, neither of whom is married and one of whom is at the tail end of a bad relationship? Was Walker's mother at fault for her son's death? Should she have been watching him more closely? Or was it a freak accident caused by the hubris of a willful child? When Walker and Gwyn have their summer of incestuous marriage (or didn't if you choose to believe Gwyn), was it really as sick as we think or were they just taking comfort in the familiar? Is the incest taboo a morality system imposed by Western culture and religion or is it more widely believed (sociologists side with the latter, actually)? SO many morality questions. Too many to list here, but you get the picture.
So, I went ahead and gave it five stars because I liked it so much, was intrigued by it, and I suspect Auster is a genius. You might read it differently and just see it as a string of male fantasies and peregrinations that you have no time for. But really that just proves this experiment for Auster ;) Honestly, I think the director from Memento needs to take this book and make a film out of it. Now THAT would be something to see.
What Auster has really done here is create a meditation on authorship. Who wrote these stories? Is Auster James Freeman? (Before you answer that question, read Auster's bio and then read this book. It could be Auster's life: went to Columbia, year in Paris, returned to Columbia, all in the years that book takes place). Did Walker have a torrid, incestuous relationship with his sister or was that just another male sexual fantasy as his sister claims? Freeman openly acknowledges that he fleshed out the third section of the book from fragmentary notes, which adds another level of questions about authorship. As a piece of literature, this book would make an excellent discussion piece for a critical theory class who wanted to delve into all those lovely deconstruction questions about whether the author matters or whether we are just making signs that are interpreted by each reader differently, etc.
Moving on from that morass of twistiness, there are the clear borrowings or nods to Goethe's Faust. Anyone who's read Faust must certainly recognize Mephistopheles in Born. There are all the references to Dante's Inferno and the author Bertran de Born that Walker connects with Born from the start. So already we have this walk, ever deeper into the lacuna coil of what may or may not be Walker's imagination. He seems to know everything. His manipulations always lead to the most wicked places, including murder and affairs. Margot in contrast is called an "angel" (27). Walker says that his family was "blessed with the genes of angels" (78). Interestingly, Auster also creates Walker as a man "born sterile" (86). Why? What was the point of that? One possible suggestion would be that angels are androgynous and incapable of procreation. And Lucifer (Satan/Mephisto) was an angel, which leads me to my thoughts about the title of the book.
There are so many subtle ways that Auster uses the word "invisible" in this book. The first time is in this quote: "vanity-that invisible cauldron of self-regard and ambition that simmers and burns in each one of us" (15). Vanity was Lucifer's sin. He thought he was as good or better than God. Walker similar speaks of his "insufferable human perfection" (78). Then there is the invisibility of the "actual" author. Many of the characters are described as invisible or not quite there (cf. Margot's description above). There is the invisible murderer who may or may not have killed the boy in the park (which may or may not be Born). There is the long dead little brother, who is present but invisible as both Walker and Gwyn celebrate his birthday annually and make up a life for him that he's never lived. Also, there is this quote from Oppen:
Impossible to doubt the world: it can be seen
And because it is irrevocable
It cannot be understood, and I believe that fact is lethal. (182).
In other words, if something is invisible, you can doubt it, as you'll find yourself doing with most of this book. But it's delicious doubt, the kind of doubt that makes you want to turn around and reread the book again (another reason for wanting to give it 5 stars). And these are just a few uses of the idea of invisibility.
Add to this the theme of morality. Auster consistently sets up these situations for his characters where the morality is in a great big grey area. So, in a sense, the morality itself is invisible. It's neither here nor there. When Born stabbed the young man under the bridge, was he right to do so because he was defending himself and Walker or was he a brutal murderer who returned to the park later and stabbed the kid 12 more times for fun? When Walker and Margot have their sex bender, is it an affair, or is it just an interlude between two consenting adults, neither of whom is married and one of whom is at the tail end of a bad relationship? Was Walker's mother at fault for her son's death? Should she have been watching him more closely? Or was it a freak accident caused by the hubris of a willful child? When Walker and Gwyn have their summer of incestuous marriage (or didn't if you choose to believe Gwyn), was it really as sick as we think or were they just taking comfort in the familiar? Is the incest taboo a morality system imposed by Western culture and religion or is it more widely believed (sociologists side with the latter, actually)? SO many morality questions. Too many to list here, but you get the picture.
So, I went ahead and gave it five stars because I liked it so much, was intrigued by it, and I suspect Auster is a genius. You might read it differently and just see it as a string of male fantasies and peregrinations that you have no time for. But really that just proves this experiment for Auster ;) Honestly, I think the director from Memento needs to take this book and make a film out of it. Now THAT would be something to see.
jess_84's review against another edition
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
tsenteme's review against another edition
5.0
Η έκπληξη της χρονιάς. Η απόδειξη (για μένα) ότι δεν πρέπει ποτέ να αποκλείουμε τίποτα και να έχουμε ανοιχτό το μυαλό μας.
Είχα διαβάσει πριν χρόνια την τριλογία της Νέας Υόρκης και το θεώρησα χαμένο χρόνο. Ήταν σκέτη απογοήτευση, παρά τις διθυραμβικές κριτικές που διάβασα. Ωστόσο είπα να δώσω μια δεύτερη ευκαιρία και συνάντησα έναν άλλον συγγραφέα, κάτι εκ διαμέτρου διαφορετικό.
Ήταν ένα συγκλονιστικό βιβλίο. Μια συγκινητική ιστορία γεμάτη αναπάντεχες εκπλήξεις που έθιξε πολλά θέματα όπως το θάνατο, τις αναμνήσεις που επηρεάζουν ολόκληρη τη ζωή κτλ. Πρόκειται για ένα ψυχογράφημα, για το οποίο τολμώ να πω πως ο Auster είναι ένας σύγχρονος Ντοστογιέφσκι και ένας από τους πιο σπουδαίους εν ζωή συγγραφείς. Αναθεώρησα λοιπόν 100%.
Υ.Γ. Μου άρεσαν πολύ οι αναφορές σε ποιητές και γενικά λογοτέχνες, οι οποίες φυσικά μου άνοιξαν την όρεξη!
Είχα διαβάσει πριν χρόνια την τριλογία της Νέας Υόρκης και το θεώρησα χαμένο χρόνο. Ήταν σκέτη απογοήτευση, παρά τις διθυραμβικές κριτικές που διάβασα. Ωστόσο είπα να δώσω μια δεύτερη ευκαιρία και συνάντησα έναν άλλον συγγραφέα, κάτι εκ διαμέτρου διαφορετικό.
Ήταν ένα συγκλονιστικό βιβλίο. Μια συγκινητική ιστορία γεμάτη αναπάντεχες εκπλήξεις που έθιξε πολλά θέματα όπως το θάνατο, τις αναμνήσεις που επηρεάζουν ολόκληρη τη ζωή κτλ. Πρόκειται για ένα ψυχογράφημα, για το οποίο τολμώ να πω πως ο Auster είναι ένας σύγχρονος Ντοστογιέφσκι και ένας από τους πιο σπουδαίους εν ζωή συγγραφείς. Αναθεώρησα λοιπόν 100%.
Υ.Γ. Μου άρεσαν πολύ οι αναφορές σε ποιητές και γενικά λογοτέχνες, οι οποίες φυσικά μου άνοιξαν την όρεξη!