Rating: 
Summary: DANIEL QUINN CONNECTION?
Review: I really liked City of Glass. I actually read it first when I found a copy of the comic book version in the library where I work and read it on a whim. I was in a bookstore the other day and noticed a book called "The Story of B" by an author named Daniel Quinn (the name of the "detective"/mystery writer in City of Glass. From the books jacket, I found out that it has a major character in it ("B"), who believes that the fall of man has something to do with the Tower of Babel and words losing their true meaning, JUST like the character Peter Stillman believes in the book City of Glass. Has anyone read both these books? Was Paul Auster secretly referring to Daniel Quinn, the author in real life, and his book, "The Story of B"? I think it's pretty interesting, personally. Any ideas or theories, please email me.
Rating:
Summary: great start; ending fizzles (3 and a half stars)
Review: I was very intrigued through about three fourths of this book. I loved the ideas presented about language and identity. But, towards the end, I found myself a little... well, not bored, exactly... less interested I guess.It's worth reading though; Auster's writing is excellent and his ideas are intelligent and thought provoking. Even though I became a bit disgruntled towards the end, I will go on to read the second volume in the series.
Rating:
Summary: great start; ending fizzles (3 and a half stars)
Review: I was very intrigued through about three fourths of this book. I loved the ideas presented about language and identity. But, towards the end, I found myself a little... well, not bored, exactly... less interested I guess. It's worth reading though; Auster's writing is excellent and his ideas are intelligent and thought provoking. Even though I became a bit disgruntled towards the end, I will go on to read the second volume in the series.
Rating: 
Summary: I don't know about this one . . .
Review: I'm not too sure about this one. I tried to go into it with an open mind, especially after being warned that it was a "little strange." Having enjoyed books such as Ishiguro's "Unconsoled" and other Kafka-esque novels, I was ready for anything. However, unfortunately, this book didn't seem to go anywhere. The story was interesting, as was the transformation of Quinn . . . but unfortunately, "interesting" doesn't make a good novel. Perhaps if the author had gone a bit deeper in his explanations and descriptions, and didn't limit himself to a mere 200 pages, something would have come of it. Unfortunately, i feel like the nights i spent reading this book were wasted time. I kept telling myself to go on . . . . that in the end it would be worth it. Finally, as I turned the last page, I realized i was wrong . . .
Rating: 
Summary: A metaphysical mystery
Review: It seems this is a post-modern book. It has elements of a conventional mystery story, but in the end it's a study of personality, reality and so on. The actual happenings get eventually so strange, that you can't just read it as a story with a beginning and an end. My problem with this kind of books is that just don't have the energy or the capacity to reach all the author's points and ideas. I'd rather take literarure as entertainment. As a story, City Of Glass isn't very impressive, but it has an atmosphere to it. Some passages were really moving. A book this intelligent must be better than average, even if it's not exactly my piece of cake.
Rating: 
Summary: You are incorrect sir.
Review: Mesmerizing. Paul Auster throws a tale at me the likes of which I have never seen. This book was given to me by my father, who in turn had been recommended it by a college student studying for his doctorate in english--so basicly it came backed up in force. I had my doubts, especially after glancing over the reviews here---which have since improved a bit--but was astounded upon setting down this book. City of Glass is is for a true literay mind to decipher. If you have at least the slightest interest in either Paradise Lost or Don Quixote this novel is a must. Remember it is a mystery novel, but certainly not the sort I am guessing most are accustomed to=bad reviews. Still I had a blast reading Auster's words, watching him tease me with a few literary techniques I have not ever seen, and doing this in a straight-forward manner. This mystery novel is for the literary sleuth--less the the mystery one. Entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: You are incorrect sir.
Review: Mesmerizing. Paul Auster throws a tale at me the likes of which I have never seen. This book was given to me by my father, who in turn had been recommended it by a college student studying for his doctorate in english--so basicly it came backed up in force. I had my doubts, especially after glancing over the reviews here---which have since improved a bit--but was astounded upon setting down this book. City of Glass is is for a true literay mind to decipher. If you have at least the slightest interest in either Paradise Lost or Don Quixote this novel is a must. Remember it is a mystery novel, but certainly not the sort I am guessing most are accustomed to=bad reviews. Still I had a blast reading Auster's words, watching him tease me with a few literary techniques I have not ever seen, and doing this in a straight-forward manner. This mystery novel is for the literary sleuth--less the the mystery one. Entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating
Review: My first Paul Auster. I dont read much detective stories. So I really first caught on when Quin started to talk to Peter Stillman. From then on, I was really enchanted, but kept asking myself: "What is the connection between the story about Stillman and the delibarete confusion with the names". In the end I was still fascinated, although I still dont understand what Paul Auster want to tell me.
Rating: 
Summary: Dry, boring and unrewarding
Review: Paul Auster's City of Glass is perhaps the worst read I've experienced. The story moves at a pace that would make a snail envious; the murder mystery plot is as thin as air and hardly resolves itself; we spend way too many waking hours with the main character sulking around his apartment staring into a toilet bowl in which he has just defficated--I kid you not. The best part of this novel is the end. I read with fervor to get to the end in hopes that the author would have the talent to tie everything together and make this experience somewhat valid; however, I was utterly and discustingly dissapointed beyond my wildest dreams. To all the reviewers and critics who claim this book is a metaphysical, existential tour de-force, I beg wholeheartedly with my very life to differ. I believe the author had no such thoughts in mind, had no direction when writing this disgrace of a work and it saddens me to see such an unentertaining, dry-dry-dry piece of fiction with one or two not-so-clever plot devices, gather such literary praise. Like a Rorschach image you can see life, love, death, a myriad of wonderful symbols, and if you would like to believe that the person who put that ink blot on the page intended you to see all of that depth, intepret and dwell in that depth--coming to conclusions and reflecting ultimately on your own life, well, then, good for you. But in reality, the person that made that Rorschach for you is Auster, and he just ambigoulsy splatted some ink on the novel pages before you with no ryhme or reason and you All bought it...hook line and sinker. This novel is an exercise in an authors ability to take us nowhere, show us little on the way and still receive praise, despite an ending which is refelctive of the entire work, in that it plain and simply: sucks.
Rating:
Summary: Dry, boring and unrewarding
Review: Paul Auster's City of Glass is perhaps the worst read I've experienced. The story moves at a pace that would make a snail envious; the murder mystery plot is as thin as air and hardly resolves itself; we spend way too many waking hours with the main character sulking around his apartment staring into a toilet bowl in which he has just defficated--I kid you not. The best part of this novel is the end. I read with fervor to get to the end in hopes that the author would have the talent to tie everything together and make this experience somewhat valid; however, I was utterly and discustingly dissapointed beyond my wildest dreams. To all the reviewers and critics who claim this book is a metaphysical, existential tour de-force, I beg wholeheartedly with my very life to differ. I believe the author had no such thoughts in mind, had no direction when writing this disgrace of a work and it saddens me to see such an unentertaining, dry-dry-dry piece of fiction with one or two not-so-clever plot devices, gather such literary praise. Like a Rorschach image you can see life, love, death, a myriad of wonderful symbols, and if you would like to believe that the person who put that ink blot on the page intended you to see all of that depth, intepret and dwell in that depth--coming to conclusions and reflecting ultimately on your own life, well, then, good for you. But in reality, the person that made that Rorschach for you is Auster, and he just ambigoulsy splatted some ink on the novel pages before you with no ryhme or reason and you All bought it...hook line and sinker. This novel is an exercise in an authors ability to take us nowhere, show us little on the way and still receive praise, despite an ending which is refelctive of the entire work, in that it plain and simply: sucks.
|
