Auster's biggest concern in the book, they argue, is trying to define what "home" means, whether it's a place, a person, or some combination of both. He tries to do this through a large cast of characters all struggling, in some way or another, with the idea of "home" (and in the case of the squatters, not having one at all). Biblioklept's opinion, though, is that in creating so many characters with so many individual problems, the plot gets too big for one book, resulting in an ending that isn't as definitive and satisfying as they, and apparently many other bloggers, wanted.
Biblioklept suggests that this lack of satisfaction may be due, in part, to the fact that the main characters (namely the four squatters), feel unrealistic. They put it best in saying the gang is "an unrealistic idealization of youthful and artistic resistance to a predatory capitalist culture." This observation really resonated with me, since as I was reading I couldn't help but feel like I'd met these characters in numerous books, movies, and television shows I've seen before. All of the squatters have similar problems-- inability to fully succeed in their art (whether that be drums, painting, or writing), doubts about their personal worth, disillusionment with society-- and no real individual personality.
The reviewer does give Auster a fair amount of praise where his writing is concerned.
His keen sentences, often unfurling for pages at a time, move from concrete to abstract, to present to past to future, to inside and outside, with a precision and skill that is admirable to say the least.
I found this to be true, as I flipped from page to page without ever having a moment of awkwardness. It did, however, make it much more difficult to try to judge the characters for myself, since I was constantly getting the narrator's view of what was happening both outside, in character interactions, and inside the characters' heads. I found it hard to keep track of who knew what about the other characters.
In the end, Biblioklept says they felt less than satisfied, though they couldn't quite put their finger on why. They did say, though, that the novel made them think and feel, "which is really the job of art–even if those thoughts and feelings are often negative and unpleasant." I agree that though the novel may not be an excellent work of thorough character development, or even as good as Auster's previous works, it still opened my eyes to a world outside my own, where I got attached to characters and felt personally invested in their lives. I think that has to count for something.
We both used the same biblioklept review for our blog entries and I enjoyed reading what you felt were the key points. I believe I shied away from using the quote about the "keen sentences" because I was weirded out by his perpetual use of run-on sentences (even though I have a tendency to write in a similar fashion); however, I do agree with your idea of being able to go from page to page without "moment[s] of awkwardness" AND the difficulty such writing (and nebulous sense of narrator identity) presents, in regards to creating a complicated plot line and complex web of characters.
ReplyDeleteFrom your post, it was easy to tell that you enjoyed this novel, for the most part, but not blindly - as you were able to support both the positive and negative aspects as reported by biblioklept.
Both your blog and biblioklept end on a not-quite-negative note by stating that you had a reaction to Auster's work, which was a brilliant literary parallel.