iako pisano tako čitko i tečno da te tjera okretati stranicu za stranicom, bez zaustavljanja, budi pažljiv, pazi i prati, jer tri priče u ovoj trilogiji vezane su mnoštvom detalja. mogu stajati i odvojeno, ali onda bi se cijela konstrukcija trilogije izgubila. zajednička im je priča o detektivu, lijepoj/kobnoj ženi i misterioznom identitetu i podudaraju se u neočekivanim elementima koje auster izbaci pred tebe bez upozorenja - zadivio me i stavio osmijeh na lice.
majstorski, vješto, lucidno i promišljeno.

سه‌گانه‌ی نیویورک کتاب پیچیده ایست از اون دسته کتاب‌هایی که لحن روایت و زاویه دید عنصر تاثیرگذاری در داستان‌هاست.
سه گانه نیویورک را حتما باید 2 یا 3 بار خواند تا روابط و هویت شخصیت‌ها کاملاًجا افتاده و مشخص شود .
سه داستان جداگانه با هویت مستقل و در عین حال مرتبط باهم.
پل استر نویسنده چیره‌دستی‌ست و این به وضوح از سه‌گانه‌اش پیداست
پیشنهاد من برای دوستداران این نوع نوشته‌ها دیدن فیلم‌های دیوید لینچ مخصوصاً "بولوار مالهالند" و "بزرگراه گمشده "است .

Baudelaire cited by Paul Auster in City of Glass: "Il me semble que je serais toujours bien là où je ne suis pas." In other words: It seems to me that I will always be happy in the place where I am not. Or, more bluntly: Wherever I am not is the place where I am myself. Or else, taking the bull by the horns: Anywhere out of the world.

It was a wrong number that started it, the telephone ringing three times in the dead of night, and the voice on the other end asking for someone he was not....

3.5 leaning towards 4... ah, my hate-love relationship with Paul Auster...
I loved some of Auster's books, Brooklyn Follies, Book of Illusions.... but he always keeps me wondering. Like his 'Man in the Dark'. This NY Trilogy (City of Glass, Ghosts and The Locked Room)... it's a crime noire novel... and it keeps you wondering what's going on. I read ShovelMoney1's review who says, 'a study on the watched and the watcher in a sort of claustrophobic ever decreasing circles format'. Good description. Auster's writing is rather pretentious at times, sort of bothers me, but it is also poetic, mysterious and that is where he draws me in....
City of Glass was a difficult start for me, had trouble getting through, including the rather pretentious pages of theories... I read some reviews here of City of Glass which were rather aggressively negative. Putting it mildly. I even considered stopping after that first one, but decided to read on and then the book got to me.... although I'm still thinking how much I liked it and what the h*** does Auster mean with those three stories that seem to make a full circle...
Read it again maybe? Mmmmmm.... maybe. For now, Auster did get into my head, yet again.

'In three variants on the classic detective story, Paul Auster makes the well-traversed terrain of New York city his own, as it becomes a strange, compelling landscape in which identities merge or fade and questions serve only to further obscure the truth.'

I stayed on in the house for a few more days. My plan was to do nothing for as long as I could, to rest up. I was exhausted, and I need a chance to regroup before going back to Paris. A day or two went by. I walked through the fields, visited the woods, sat out in the sun reading French translations of American detective novels. It should have been the perfect cure: holing up in the middle of nowhere, letting my mind float free. But none of it really helped. The house wouldn't make room for me, and by the third day, I sensed that I was no longer alone, that I could never be alone in that place. Fanshawe was there, and no matter how hard I tried not to think of him, I couldn't escape. This was unexpected, galling. Now that I had stopped looking for him, he was more present to me than ever before. The whole process had been reversed. After all these months of trying to find him, I felt as though I was the one who had been found...

Na filmovima se često dešava da vispreni zlikovac, pošto ispuca sve kvarnjačke trikove, namami heroja u nekakvu sobu sa ogledalima, kako bi ga ošamutio sopstvenom (herojevom) sposobnošću zapažanja i napokon ga sebi skinuo s vrata. Tako se protagonista nađe u sasvim neprirodnom haosu: pošto je vizualno bombardovan svojim iskrivljenim odrazima, mora da prebaci oslonac na auditivna opažanja, te osluškuje tišinu, zaustavlja disanje, pažljivo hoda kroz srču, sve vreme kalkulišući koliko mu još municije ostalo u šaržeru, gde će i kad da opali. Tako mnogobrojni efekti napnu gledaoca do ivice stolice, ali se pravi uzrok dramatičnosti krije u, napokon, pravednoj situaciji: zlikovac je – obrni, okreni – u istom sosu kao junak, te će pobediti bolji. Tuče na ferku su visoko cenjene u svim krugovima, pa niko ne zamera što je to malo bajata fora.

Upravo to Pol Oster radi čitaocu Njujorške trilogije.

Najpre ću se malo čuditi nad nemalim brojem komentara da su ovo tri nezavisne priče među kojima je teško pronaći vezu. Smislenije bi mi bilo shvatanje da su ovo tri varijacije jedne teme i da je upravo zato Geopoetika angažovala troje dobrih prevodilaca (o Zoranu i Ivani Paunović se već sve zna, a i Zorana Spaić ih u stopu prati). U tom smislu, naravno da se većini najviše dopada poslednji deo celine u kome se sve raspliće, ako ovde ima mesta za priču o klasičnom raspletu.

Negde na polovini Njujorške trilogije piše da je primarni cilj svake knjige da zabavi čitaoca. Ako je to Oster hteo, u mom slučaju je potpunosti ispunio cilj: silno sam se zabavljala sve vreme, malo i na bis. A kako i ne bih, kad je unutra strpao sve i svašta: detektivske priče od vrste misterioznih, književne aluzije, svakovrsne anegdote i zabavne pričice (kako je Servantes sve hteo da nas zezne zamenom identiteta, kako je obdukciju Volta Vitmena radio jedan smotanko forenzičar, kako glavni projektant Bruklin bridža nikad nogom nije kročio na svoj most), maskiranja, malo Vavilonske kule, malo Pariza, mnogo Njujorka, mnogo ispisanih svezaka, pisaca, izdavača, seksa, dece i beba, poštanskih fahova, taštine, voajerske ostrašćenosti, zanesenjaštva, hazarderstva,...a između čitaoca i sveg tog zamešateljstva stoji neko ko igra kolariću – paniću sa likovima i imenima, dok je Pol Oster (imenom) epizodista koji obavlja neka svoja posla, pa se zbuni (kao i čitalac) kad čuje kakve se to stvari sve zbivaju na ovome svetu.

Dakle, šareni komadići ogledala u kojima je odraz fikcije, rasuti po stvarnosti i narativu, a ti, čitaoče, izvoli, pronađi gde šta pripada, lepo sve to zalepi i pogledaj veliku sliku. Kako ćeš rekonstruisati tu metafikciju i da li ćeš u njoj videti šta je (za Pola Ostera, ovog živog, pisca) pisanje, ili muku definisanja identiteta ili apsurdnost njegovog pronalaženja ili cenu slobode izbora ili sebe u ma kom svetlu ili ćeš naučiti da zabijanje nosa u tuđe stvari ne samo što nije pristojno, nego nije ni malo mudro... intimno je pitanje.

Nisam se baš načitala američke književnosti zato što mi kod većine tamošnjih pisaca ona pomenuta zabava uvek ostane samoj sebi svrha, što mi brzo dosadi, ali Oster ima malo evropejskog šlifa i finog francuskog glanca, pa je elemente visprenije ukrojio, štepovi mu se ne vide i tako postiže izvesni stepen elegancije (dok američka elegancija ostaje skoro pa oksimoron).

Nije Pol Oster kriv što je došao na red malo posle Havijera Marijasa, pa sad ne može i on da dobije peticu jer nema dovoljno ležernosti da padnem u nesvest. Da ne bude samo to, zameriću mu što insistira na izlizanom receptu da se do samoosvešćenja može doći samo preko mostića na smrt ugrožene egzistencije. Ne kažem da to nije put, možda čak jeste i najkraći, al' dobro više s tim.
Eto, summa cum laude, ali četvorka.

C'est l'histoire d'un écrivain de romans policiers qui devient détective le temps d'un premier roman d'une trilogie, et qui prend en filature un homme qui réinvente le langage dans les rues de Manhattan. Ou alors, c'est l'histoire d'un anonyme qui prend en filature un homme qui ne fait pourtant qu'écrire des romans policiers basés sur des rapports de filature, dans un appartement de Brooklyn. Ou bien, c'est l'histoire d'un écrivain qui disparaît, et de son ami qui prend sa place, puis essaye de retrouver sa trace, de New York à Paris.

Dans les trois romans de sa trilogie new yorkaise – "City of glass", "Ghosts" et "Revenants" – Paul Auster brouille les pistes en emmêlant infiniment les mêmes thèmes et les mêmes images : la filature, le langage, l'écriture, le personnage du détective, surgissent à nouveau sous de nouvelles identités et de nouveaux traits. Les personnages se doublent, se triplent, reviennent sans y paraître. Les mêmes références s'entrecroisent aussi, de Thoreau à Hemingway, Auster cite encore, sous de nouveaux angles, ses auteurs préférés – à moins qu'il ne fasse, finalement, que se citer lui-même.

Je parlais de Moon Palace avec mon libraire la dernière fois, et je lui disais que j'avais l'intention de lire la Trilogie new yorkaise prochainement, il m'a dit : "C'est formidable, vous verrez, c'est la même histoire racontée trois fois" ; alors j'avais imaginé des sortes d'exercices de style à la Queneau. Au contraire, en parcourant les références de goodreaders, j'ai vu que beaucoup d'entre eux ne remarquaient aucun lien entre les trois histoires. Qui a raison ?
Tout le monde, probablement. Auster réussit un coup de maître en réunissant trois histoires qui, en étant absolument identiques, sont tout de même entièrement différentes. On pourrait les lire comme des histoires similaires, ou comme des textes indépendants : tout dépend de votre lecture, et franchement, c'est là le génie du texte. Telle l'unifinished music de John Lennon et Yoko Ono, pour rester dans les références new yorkaises, c'est au lecteur d'Auster que revient l'interprétation finale de son oeuvre.

L'entrelacement d'images et de références fait tenir ces trois textes comme un ensemble ; ça et, bien sûr, le thème de New York. Plus qu'un décor, New York devient personnage. Manhattan est une tour de Babel dans "City of Glass", elle se dédouble en miroir avec le portrait de Brooklyn dans "Ghosts", et elle cherche un nouveau reflet avec la visite de Chicago ou de Paris dans "Revenants". New York parle ses personnages, et signifie dans le texte d'Auster.

On aime ou on déteste la New York Trilogy, je ne pense pas qu'il puisse y avoir de juste milieu. Ceux qui l'aiment aiment forcément son mystère, ils aiment le fait que certaines questions ne trouvent pas de réponse ; ce qui rend forcément la critique sur le triple roman difficile.
Ceux qui détestent le livre ont, en revanche, leurs arguments tout trouvés.

New York Trilogy est prétentieux, ou au moins, l'écriture de Paul Auster est prétentieuse.
Oui ?... Difficile à dire. Le projet d'Auster, et l'écriture à travers laquelle il le mène, sont expérimentaux. L'expérimentation est-elle indissociable de la prétention ? Je ne lui jetterais pas la pierre juste parce qu'il tente d'innover littérairement.

New York Trilogy a des personnages creux, peu profonds. On ne s'attache pas à eux.
... Alors ça, c'est certain, mais pour ma part je n'ai jamais compris pourquoi certains lecteurs avaient besoin de s'attacher aux personnages. Le fait est que les plus grands chefs d'oeuvre ne sont pas toujours construits sur des personnages forts. Ici, les personnages sont évidemment les marionnettes de l'auteur, qui met en place un chef d'oeuvre de narration et de structure.

New York Trilogy est difficile à lire.
Oui. Ce n'est pas une lecture évidente, c'est une lecture qui prend du temps et de la réflexion, mais ce n'est pas un effort que je regrette. Et je suis sûre que mêmes les plus grincheux d'entre nous ne regrettent pas, au fond, d'avoir eu l'occasion de lire quelque chose de foncièrement différent.

Lu dans la très belle édition Penguin Classics Deluxe avec les illustrations d'Art Spiegelman. Ce roman a une grosse couverture en carton qui le rend vraiment confortable, si l'on en croit mon chat.

Lu dans le cadre du Club de lecture francophonie du mois d'avril, sur le thème de New York !

Gledano spolja, tri detektivska romana, pisana tako da se lako čitaju i prosto te prisiljavaju da brzo okrećeš stranu za stranom. Iako se radi o detektivskom poslu i zadacima (praćenje, traženje odredjenih osoba), detektiva je u ove tri priče malo. U glavnim ulogama su pisci.

S druge strane, dok čitaš svaki od ova tri kratka romana (ukupno 270 strana), sa svakom novom stranom jasno ti je koliko ima tu materije za razmišljanje. Prosto ti je žao što te je na nekim mestima ponela priča pa si žurio. Upravo zbog toga, ovo delo je prirodan novi član moje Goodreads “reread” police.

Teme kojima se Oster bavi su pisanje i literatura, samo-analiza i kontemplacija, identitet, prolaznost vremena... Osim toga, tu je nekoliko vrlo zabavnih anekdota, interesantni kvazi-eseji o Don Kihotu i mitovima Starog zaveta, ali i humor u korišćenju likova (u prvom romanu tu je Pol Oster).

Sva tri romana (hm, priče?) otvaraju mnogo više pitanja nego što daju odgovora. Nijedna ne donosi koji završetak u klasičnom narativnom smislu, ali baš zato toliko više prostora za razmišljanje.

Tre racconti dalle trame enigmatiche ed ingarbugliate che si riflettono tra loro, meta-letteratura, l’autore che spunta nel libro come personaggio, la scrittura o il mestiere di scrittore e l’indagine come perni centrali del tutto, rimandi letterari e parallelismi con capisaldi della letteratura, tanti sviluppi e indizi mind-blowing sparsi qua e là che ti fanno saltare in aria, tantissime domande e pochissime risposte. Insomma, il postmodernismo che ci piace.
Ho apprezzato molto il modo in cui le ossessioni del protagonista riemergano continuamente in modo martellante: il tema del doppio, del gemello, della totale immedesimazione in un altro, il tema della perdita della propria identità e quindi anche la confusione dei nomi, il tema del pedinamento.
Dal finale mi aspettavo un po’ di più, vista l’architettura articolata del libro, e trovo che sia un gigantesco buco di trama il fatto che il protagonista di La stanza chiusa non si sia mai rivolto alla sorella di Fanshawe durante le sue indagini. Evidentemente ho un problema coi finali dei romanzi di Paul Auster, anche se quello di questo libro non è stato per me neanche lontanamente deludente come quello di 4321; è un bel finale in realtà, ma non bellissimo come il resto del libro, che faceva presagire molto di più, per quanto mi riguarda. O forse il mio problema è che non volevo che finisse così presto, volevo di più, volevo più spiegazioni e soluzioni che chiudessero i cerchi e il non averle avute mi ha dato un senso di insoddisfazione.

Ammetto, infine, di aver preso la cartina di New York arrivata alle pagine 111-112 e di aver tentato di tracciare il percorso di Quinn nella speranza che spuntasse fuori un messaggio per il lettore, ma ho perso la pazienza e non ho finito. In ogni caso dubito sarebbe emerso qualcosa, ma sarebbe stato geniale fosse stato così.

Voto: 4.5

Superb.

I think I must have been about 18 when my older brother gave me Paul Auster's “The New York Trilogy” as a gift for my birthday. I started reading it - and hated it! I couldn’t get into it, couldn’t get a grip on it. I put it back into my bookshelf and forgot about it for a few years.

It fell again into my hands (quite literally!) when I reorganised my shelves and I decided to give it another chance. This time around, though, I just read and suspended judgement. I won’t lie to you: I had similar difficulties as before but this time I kept reading. And, somehow, things started falling into place…

With accepting that Auster employs a unique kind of storytelling came understanding and respect for his masterful writing. Ultimately, I became completely engrossed in the three interconnected novels that make up this trilogy.

The first novel, "City of Glass", sets the tone for the rest of the trilogy with its atmospheric and almost dreamlike descriptions of New York City. Auster's ability to capture the essence of the city, with all its chaos and intrigue, is truly remarkable. The protagonist, Daniel Quinn, is a complex and fascinating character who becomes embroiled in a mysterious case that takes him on a journey through the city and ultimately leads him to question his own sanity. The way Auster weaves together the themes of identity, language, and the power of perception in this novel is simply brilliant.

The second novel, "Ghosts", picks up where "City of Glass" left off and follows a new protagonist, Blue, as he investigates a strange case involving a man named Black who may or may not be dead. As the story unfolds, the lines between reality and fiction become increasingly blurred, and Auster expertly explores the themes of memory, history, and the idea of the self.

So far, though, those novels didn’t seem like parts of a trilogy. Yes, there were interconnections, both obvious ones as well as more obscure ones but I was still a little sceptical…

And then came the final novel, "The Locked Room", which brings the trilogy to a more-than-satisfying conclusion by tying together the threads that run throughout the three books. Sometimes these threads are so thin, they might be mistaken for an undercurrent or background noise and yet they’re there…

In this final part Auster took all those threads and wove them into a beautiful complex literary “tapestry” that even now, decades later, shines bright in my memory.

Its protagonist, Fanshawe, is a writer who mysteriously disappears, leaving behind a cache of unpublished manuscripts. As his childhood friend attempts to unravel the mystery of Fanshawe's disappearance, the reader is taken on a journey through the worlds of literature, art, and the human psyche.

What I appreciated most about the "New York Trilogy" was Auster's willingness to take risks with his writing. His art - and there can be no doubt this is on par with any other great piece of art - was obviously more important than mainstream success. I remain convinced that Auster lost many potential readers like he initially lost me.

And yet he took the risk and explored complex ideas and themes in a way that is both engaging and thought-provoking. The trilogy is filled with twists and turns that keep the reader on their toes, and the characters are so well-drawn that it's impossible not to become invested in their stories.

In conclusion, I would highly recommend Paul Auster's "New York Trilogy" to anyone who is looking for a thought-provoking and engaging read. Auster's writing is truly masterful, and the trilogy as a whole is a testament to his brilliance and genius as an author.

After reading the “New York Trilogy” I’ve “blindly” bought each and every book Auster has written and with one exception (“4 3 2 1”) I’ve enjoyed them all. For me, Paul Auster has become an icon of literature and his “New York Trilogy” is the reason I hesitate to leave a book unfinished - what if it’s another unique masterpiece?!

Five stars out of five.


Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Mastodon | Instagram | Pinterest | Medium | Matrix | Tumblr

Ceterum censeo Putin esse delendam

I think this was my first encounter with Paul Auster, a man who I met through the cult of the 1001 books to read before you die list. Prior to that I was vaguely aware of Auster and his peculiar brand of love/loath inciting literature which had friends alternatively raging or swooning, but had never bothered my arse to go and see what all the fuss was about.

Turns out I rather loved this - once I had progressed beyond the first forty pages. For the first forty pages I'd already rather rudely pigeon-holed the book as "arty-wank", thinking to myself, Oh dear this looks like it is entering into pretentious toss territory. When I say entering I mean approaching the door marked pretentious toss and busting its way in using a battering ram made out of glued together copies of The Body Artist by Don DeLillo, then stepping over the wreckage of the door and striding to the middle of the room to stand on the podium of arty-toss-bollocks while waving its arms over its head..... but nope, turns out it's all good.

Excellent trilogy, a study on the watched and the watcher in a sort of claustrophobic ever decreasing circles format which made my tiny mind spin, but in a good way, like the literary equivalent of an MC Escher drawing. In a complete about turn I then had to remove the book from the arty-wank pigeon hole and give it a little hug. This was followed by me then going out to purchase pretty much all of Paul Auster's books. Can't think for the life of me why I've not bothered to review more of them on Goodreads either. This one is deserving of a place on the 1001 books to read before you die list - just don't let the first forty pages fool you.

"Em geral, as vidas parecem desviar-se abruptamente de uma coisa para outra, parecem oscilar e cair, parecem contorcer-se. Uma pessoa segue uma direcção, vira abruptamente a meio do caminho, pára, vagueia, começa de novo. Nunca se sabe nada e chegamos inevitavelmente a um sítio muito diferente daquele para onde queríamos ir."

Página 253

في منتصف الثمانينات صدرت لأوستر رواية " مدينة الزجاج " و التي قام برفضها سبعة عشر ناشر حتى جازف أحدهم بطباعتها و ذلك لكونها رواية غير مألوفة و غامضة إن صح التعبير. أعقب ذلك صدور روايتين هما " الأشباح " و " الغرفة الموصدة " - غنيّ عن القول أنهما الجزئين المكملين للثلاثية - و بعد سنتين تفرغ أوستر للكتابة بعد أن حقق المجد و الشهرة عبر هذه الثلاثية و أصبحت الكتابة مهنته الأساسية إذ بدأت تنفق عليه و إن لم يكن بالثراء الذي يتصوره البعض - يعلق ضاحكاً -. عوالم أوستر على غرابتها و فرادتها من الممكن التكهن بها فهناك دائماً كاتب و هناك الكثير من حديث الكتب، و يبحث شخوصه بإلحاحٍ جنوني على الدوام عن الهوية و المعنى، و بطبيعة الحال تلعب الصدفة دوراً كبيراً في قصص أوستر. في مدينة الزجاج يتصل أحدهم بالكاتب كوين طالباً النجدة من وكالة التحري! و بالمناسبة يقول أوستر أنه قد تعرض لهذا الموقف شخصياً. الثلاثية مجموعة من الروايات البوليسية - ليست بالنمط المعهود - و فيها ينساق الأبطال بمكالمة أو رسالة لمصيرهم الحادّ و تحتاج الثلاثية إلى جَلَد من نوع خاص. من عبقرية أوستر أنه توقع هذا الحنق ليربت على كتف القاريء بجملة من كتاب " والدن " ترجو من القارئ أن يتهمل في قرائته حتى يستوعبه كاملاً! هناك الكثير من السطور التي سيطل بها أوستر مخاطباً القارئ بشكل غير مباشر. في الرواية الأولى يلعب كوين دور التحري - علماً أنه كاتب عادي لا أقل و لا أكثر - بينما يذهب التحري بلو ليهدر سنة من عمره في مراقبة شخص آخر في " الأشباح " و في الرواية الثالثة تتحول رسالة فانشو صديق الطفولة إلى ديناميت من شأنه أن يدمر كل شيء. عبقرية الثلاثية تتجلى بوضوح بتشابهها مع متاهة كاتدرائية شارتر بفرنسا حيث تبدو الأمور الغامضة موغلة في الوضوح! العمل عبقري و عصيّ على النسيان و يدعو إلى مزيدٍ من هذا الأوستر. لا يفوتني أن أشيد بالترجمة الأمينة.