Best book by Paul Auster?

síofra

Recently picked up his "Brooklyn Follies" by chance and progressed to "Timbuktu" and "Oracle Night", but what would you consider his best? I've heard Mr Vertigo is great.

eclectichoney

Moon palace for me. Then Oracle Night probably (but you've already read that!) Mr Vertigo was one of my least favourites to be honest. Book of Illusions is also excellent and Country of Last Things as well. I'd avoid Travels in the Scriptorium but otherwise you can't really go wrong imho!

síofra

eclectichoney wrote: »

Moon palace for me. Then Oracle Night probably (but you've already read that!) Mr Vertigo was one of my least favourites to be honest. Book of Illusions is also excellent and Country of Last Things as well. I'd avoide Travels in the Scriptorium but otherwise you can't really go wrong imho!

thanks for the recommendations. He's a wonderful writer. Love his characterisation and just the way he describes things in a way that I never could.

rain on

New York Trilogy is the classic. I was quite a fan of In The Country Of Last Things as well. I'd agree that Travels In The Scriptorium is a bit meh -- I thought it really came off as the publisher going "Hey Paul, we need a book from you quick sharp" and him going "em ok, here's one where I just drag up a million references to my previous books, cool?". The edition I have has a lovely cover though

Apparently he has a new book out too, just read that in the Irish Times today.

eclectichoney

Aye Man in the Dark - waiting to go on to it next. It's less than 200 pages I think, and his longer ones are usually better so hope I'm not disappointed

Amazotheamazing

rain on wrote: »

New York Trilogy is the classic.

And it's awfully over-rated. Such a pointless book. The guy's a great, readable writer, but like so many others, he has nothing to say, so he makes it a point of his writing to say he has nothing to say.

síofra

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

And it's awfully over-rated. Such a pointless book. The guy's a great, readable writer, but like so many others, he has nothing to say, so he makes it a point of his writing to say he has nothing to say.

I think its refreshing sometimes to find a writer who leaves you a bit of space to make up your own mind rather than attempting to overtly express a strong point of view.. I love those who make strong statements (like Orwell for example) and admire the fact that they use their craft for a particular purpose, as a means to an end but not every one can do this as skillfully. Maybe I've interpreted your comment wrongly, but there's nothing wrong with writing to say that you have nothing to say. It could be interpreted as indifference but it could also be a postive thing in that the means becomes an end in itself and you can just enjoy the way he writes rather than what he's trying to say.

Amazotheamazing

síofra wrote: »

I think its refreshing sometimes to find a writer who leaves you a bit of space to make up your own mind rather than attempting to overtly express a strong point of view.. I love those who make strong statements (like Orwell for example) and admire the fact that they use their craft for a particular purpose, as a means to an end but not every one can do this as skillfully. Maybe I've interpreted your comment wrongly, but there's nothing wrong with writing to say that you have nothing to say. It could be interpreted as indifference but it could also be a postive thing in that the means becomes an end in itself and you can just enjoy the way he writes rather than what he's trying to say.

I guess there's nothing too wrong with it, but I just found the New York trilogy empty and dull. Auster is a lovely writer, easy to read etc, but I just can't see any point to reading his stuff, based on the New York trilogy.

síofra

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I guess there's nothing too wrong with it, but I just found the New York trilogy empty and dull. Auster is a lovely writer, easy to read etc, but I just can't see any point to reading his stuff, based on the New York trilogy.

fair enough. I haven't read it yet, probably because of all the hype around it but still nice to hear another opinion!

eclectichoney

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I just can't see any point to reading his stuff, based on the New York trilogy.

I think a lot of his stuff, especially his more recent books (Brookly follies in particular), is pretty different to NYT, so don't dismiss his writing based on that single book imho.

rain on

eclectichoney wrote: »

I think a lot of his stuff, especially his more recent books (Brookly follies in particular), is pretty different to NYT, so don't dismiss his writing based on that single book imho.

Yeah, I'm sure I've said it here before but I see his books as falling into two categories; the more straightforward ones like Timbuktu and Brooklyn Follies, and the weirder avant-garde kinda ones like Oracle Night and New York Trilogy (which is a collection of novellas that aren't necessarily supposed to have any relation to each other anyway). New York Trilogy owes a lot to high modernism, I think. Brooklyn Follies is more of "a good read". There must be about twenty years between them as well.

eclectichoney

rain on wrote: »

There must be about twenty years between them as well.

now i feel old

rain on

eclectichoney wrote: »

now i feel old

??
I was on a really slow connection and couldn't be bothered checking the publication dates, but yeah, NYT came out in 1987 and Brooklyn Follies came out in 2005, so there's the bones of 20 years between them. It's a few years since I studied him so the dates are pretty fuzzy in my memory.

studiorat

I think I've read most of his stuff at this stage. I like the way he seems to appear in some of the books too.

Mr. Vertigo is an entertaining read, not has dark as some of the others. Leviathan is really great I think, I found it to be a real page turner, right till the end.

The first book of Auster's that I read was the one about the card player, Music of Chance a really great book, it was one of those books that's really atmospheric and it sort of stays with you while you are reading it. It's about the randomness of things and how stuff pans out in a No Country for Old Men kind of way. New York Trilogy has similar themes too and I think very much defines his style...

I can't put my finger on it but he reminds me of Melville to.

Don't forget the films either, Smoke and Blue in the Face.

Oh yeah, there's a new one out in September!!!

mrsdewinter

I think he's an amazing writer, without being too showy. You can hand his books to friends who aren't 'readers' and they'll still get a lot out of him. Last thing I read was Leviathan. His stuff is like crack cocaine. I have to pace myself because I want something good in reserve for when I'm feeling low

síofra

I agree with you, its the subtlety that gives him an edge over many.