I haven't been online in a while: computer not working, then a number of unexpected extras on my plate. I am tired of getting extras, tired of updating the blog less than I'd love to. Guess you too are tired of hearing me saying this...but believe it or not, there's nothing I can do about it - unless you expect me to sleep less than I already do (average of 5 hours a day...my mind doesn't stop unfortunately).
Anyway...here I am, so very happy of writing ...and I hope you will somehow still want to listen.
I came across Paul Auster a few months ago. A friend gave me The Invention of Solitude saying I should read that. I didn't have time so the book kept looking at me every single time I went to bed - put it there thinking I would be able to read a couple of pages before sleeping -. I finally managed to read it last night - couldn't sleep but was to tired to do everything other than relax and read -.
It's a short book, less than 200 pages, and it's divided into 2 parts: 2 narrators, 2 different perspectives. The title of the book is taken from part 2, which, I guess, was supposed to be the best/more interesting. Is it really so? Would love to have feedback from you. IMHO it is not. In fact, Part one is challenging and so very emotional. Part two is boring, a summa of quotes, bits and pieces from several authors. Some are very interesting but the whole thing is way too "croweded" if you allow me.
The book has a very powerful beginning: a son having to deal with the death of his father, a man he did not really know because they were never that close and did not live together (his parents were divorced). Still, his father, a man he's just beginning to know via the objects in the big house, full of absolutely everything.
How would you feel for a man who was by name your father but not by heart, not the way a "real" or "good" father is?
The narrator doesn't seem to know. He remembers, he criticises, he feels. And it is just amazing that you, the reader, a stranger, cannot help but feeling the exact same way. I did at least. I could see the big rooms, filled with objects; I could hear the silence; I could smell death...
Death is a major character in this novel. It is the answer, the question, the connection, the solution. It is the element that makes characters "human".
Then, there is part 2. The narrator is no longer the son, it's the father this time. We get to understand him a little better than we did through his son's tale. But it does feel as if he was trying to impress the reader considering the number of quotes and the way he describes some parts of his life.
If I was to analyse the structure I would say it does make sense that part two is the last one because it is based on the father's view. Solitude is the key word in this part as well as that of the father's life and choices. I couldn't help thinking the structure of the novel seems to send some sort of message from Paul Auster: there's no hope because there's none at the end of the novel; none in the father's view (part 2) whereas part one, the son's tale, is more vivid and somehow represents light at the end of the tunnel: his son, his family, the differences between his life and that of his father. SO I'd suggest you to read part two first...
It was not my cup of tea but don't think it's bed either.
Labels: Male writers , solitude , novels , narrators
