Serinin ilk kitabından sonra bir hevesle başladım buna da. Bence çok zayıf başlıyor ve devam ediyor ama finali çok iyi. Final derken son 15 sayfayı falan kastediyorum. İlk kitaptaki kimlik karmaşasına benzer ama biraz daha farklı bir yaklaşım var bu kitapta. Beğendim.

Kitabın zaman çekimlerindeki tuhaflık neden onu anlamadım. Bir amaca mı hizmet ediyor? Gitti, gitmişti, gidiyor gibi çekimler aynı paragrafta kullanılmış. Google translate gibi bir metin okudum. Neden böyle a dostlar?

I did not enjoy 4 3 2 1. Paul Auster in long form is fairly tedious. Auster in short form, however, is a delight!

هر کتاب را باید با همان تعمق، طمانینه و درون‌گرایی خواند که نوشته شده- و ناگهان پی می‌برد که نکته این است که باید به کُندی بخواند، چنان آهسته که تا کنون کلمات را چنین کند نخوانده است.
.
چه کتابی! اُستر حقیقتاً استاده. یه داستان پست مدرن درجه یک
.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039689/...
نویسنده توی کتاب درباره‌ی این فیلم هم صحبت می‌کنه. یکی از نوآرهای محبوبم.

4.5/5 I loved this. A spectacular, introspective take on a cliche mystery trope. Every color counts, every word counts -- though it becomes obvious that words are not enough. The reader follows Blue in his descent toward madness and transition into a living ghost. Once a man, now a shadow.

A quick, engaging read.

Auster follows up what I believe to be a near flawless masterpiece with a poignant tragi-something that plays out like one extended...something. There is no denying that the book really IS something.

With its own style of wit, mystery, and tragedy, Ghosts largely consists of the most intentionally boring and bland detective story ever. A guy named Blue has just been hired to spy on this other guy named Black. He sits in the apartment from the opposite side of Black's and observes him, often getting bored and exhausted and all that. Sometimes, Black actually (GASP) leaves his home and takes a walk, maybe visits a bookstore. Auster gets the reader so pumped when his characters actually step outside. And yet the book is never really boring. As a matter of fact, these extended stretches of time that depict minimalist tendencies bordering on their most extreme are kind of fun to read in a unique way only an author like Auster can really pull off.

While more mature and perhaps less flawed overall, Ghosts unfortunately doesn't come close to matching the brilliance of its predecessor. However, that's really just me. Plenty of people who hated City of Glass would probably be able to at least tolerate this. After all, it isn't even one hundred pages!

Another fun thing to note:

The book is filled with literary and otherwise art-based references, whether they be to Walt Whitman or Robert Mitchum. Most notably, Thoreau's Walden plays a very similar role to that of Don Quixote in the previous novella in the trilogy. It helps reestablish many of the novella's central themes, concepts, plot points (although the plot of this book is clearly quite loose), and so on. Really, this book is just about some guy alone observing what (the Walden pond/Black) inhabits the outside of his apartment (cabin) and writing it all down, including all sorts of records of philosophical thoughts or encounters, any event that could possibly be noteworthy.

یک‌سوم‌اش رو خوندم. خیلی ملال‌آور.

Auster is playing with you from the start. When you are given characters name Black, White and Blue, you know you are in a realm of unreality. Since I just finished the first book in the New York Trilogy (City of Glass) I knew Auster was really infatuated with the author/reader/book "space" where what was of interest to him was not the plot/characters/"point" of the novel, but in how the reader responds to what he reads of the author's words, in how the reader re-formulates the story/characters in his head. This re-formulation is where Auster has staked his claim. He no longer wants it be the elephant in the room, he is dragging it out in front of it by the trunk!

The wonder of the book is that his sentence to sentence writing is somehow magically interesting. The danger is that this type of conceited (i.e. it has a trick or "conceit") writing can leave the reader with a big case of the "who cares?". But I think he pulls it off with his writing.

As far as the book - well, my running hypothesis was that the book was a metaphor for the act of reading and writing a novel, with one character being the writer, one the reader, and one the publisher - the one who actually sends it out into the world. More than "City of Glass", this one got me thinking of the act of creation as I was reading it.

And once again, I start out giving the book three stars, and then once I write the review, I find out I've really written a four star review...I guess I really liked it.

4/5
می‌دونید چیِ این کتاب رو دوست دارم؟ شکلی که از ژانر معمایی برای ساختن جهان استفاده کرده. آبی، قهوه‌ای، سفید... همه فقط مهره بودن. خوندنش خیلی تجربه‌ی خاصیه انگار یه پرونده‌ی جنایی جلوته ولی همه‌ی نوشته ها جوهر پس دادن و خیلی جاها گم و محو شدن. احساس نیاز و درگیری کاراکتر هایی که در طول داستان توصیف شدن به خصوص آبی به هویت و درکش سرگیجه آوره. کتاب خیلی کوتاهه. شما شخصیت هایی رو شناختی که ورای نام ها هویت مشخصی دارن. جمع کردن این حجم از دودلی و پارانویا و سردرگمی توی این حجم کم کتاب رو تبدیل به یه کلاف پیچیده‌ی احساسی می‌کنه. رابطه ی آبی با کتابی که می‌خونه برام خیلی جالب بود. نیازش به خوندن و نیاز نویسنده به نوشتن. و همینطور توصیفش از تماشای کیس پرونده‌ای که (فکر می‌کرد؟) داره. اینکه اون به آبی نیاز داشت، نیاز داشت آبی زیر نظر بگیرتش.
و مثل کتاب های دیگه‌ی سه گانه سه نتیجه گیری دراماتیک...

Hace poco os dejé ya la reseña de un libro de Paul Auster: Un hombre en la oscuridad. Hacía años y años que no leía nada de Auster pero me gustó el reencuentro, tanto que he seguido con este otro y no descarto más en el futuro porque tengo varios suyos en mis pendientes.

Fantasmas es la segunda parte de la trilogía de Nueva York, la precede Ciudad de cristal y le siguen La habitación cerrada y sí, habéis acertado, en mi modo crazy locura, me lancé a leer este y al terminarlo me di cuenta de que era el segundo, pero ya poco podía hacer. De todas maneras los tres son independientes y no creo que tenga mucha importancia el orden en el que lo hagamos pues

En Fantasma no encontramos nombres, los personajes son colores: Azul, Castaño, Negro, Blanco... y aunque al inicio parece algo complicado luego lo leemos sin problemas, quizá hasta es más cómodo sin nombres.
Os explico un poco de que va todo: Conocemos a Azul, es un investigador privado contratado por Blanco para vigilar a Negro, y ya, la trama gira alrededor de esta premisa.
Y todo ocurre en Nueva York pero creo que podría pasar en cualquier otro lugar del mundo. 
Azul no sabe por qué debe vigilar a ese hombre y entonces elabora multitud de hipótesis y nosotros con él, proponemos y descartamos y a medida que la vigilancia sigue, descartamos y pocas proponemos.

Creo que Paul Auster es un gran narrador y en relatos largos como este se nota, lo llamo relato largo porque son unas 120 páginas y además es que se lee muy rápidamente.
Pero es una historia sin casi detalles pero con mucha parte introspectiva, a medida que pasan los días Azul va equiparándose con Negro y parece que uno vive porque el otro está ahí, incluso las palabras pueden perder su significado y adquirir otros cuando estas deben llenar los informes del detective, acostumbrado a las tareas de seguimiento pero no cuando la otra persona casi no hace nada. 

A medida que leemos se da una confusión de personajes, el detective que observa a un escritor se convierte en escritor y parece ser observado por aquel que escribía o podría ser que el que escribe lo haga sobre aquel que le controla.
Encontramos muchas referencias literarias, curiosidades incluso sobre autores y su obra, y la acción se sitúa en 1947. 

No es mala manera de empezar con este autor, aunque quizá lo suyo es hacerlo con el primer libro de la trilogía. Pero empecéis por el que empecéis, creo que rápidamente veréis que el autor tiene una forma de escribir bastante especial, de esas que os va a gustar mucho o todo lo contrario, pero lo suyo es darle la oportunidad a alguna de sus historias, quién sabe si encontraréis en él a vuestro próximo escritor preferido.


Para leer mi reseña completa, puedes visitar mi blog: https://www.resibooks.com/2020/04/pau...

کارآگاهی مخفی را مسئول حفاظت از مردی نویسنده و روشنفکر میکنند. اون مدتها به این کار مشغول میشود و رفته رفته در تنهایی خود غرق میشود. بعد از مدتی دست به اقدامی میزد که با مرد نویسنده ارتباط برقرار کند. طی این عمل متوجه میشود که مرد نویسنده هم به جاسوسی و حفاظت از او مشغول بوده است‌. کم کم این توهم به او دست میدهد که مبادا مرد نویسنده خود او است......

I read this story when I was 16 or 15 or sth like that. which was too soon and it killed me with existential dread. I couldn't get it, I hated it. I didn't finish the first story (city of glass) because my twin sister told me the ending is disappointing and when I finished the second story I gave up on the book entirely (because it was too cold and meaningless to me) and I didn't read the third story (the locked room) at the time. flash forward to three years ago (I was 20), some friend talked about the New York trilogy with enthusiasm and I was encouraged to read this book again. I read the first and last story and this time I fell in love with the book. it was written beautifully and was exciting, you really wanted to know what will happen next. but neither of the stories really finished the way you'd expect a normal story would finish, if you can call them finished at all. nothing was resolved, there was no catharsis.

at 20 years old, I was just starting to see the world through the eyes of existentialism, I was starting to see how everything is pointless and unlike the stories they kept telling us when we were young, pain doesn't always lead to good things, it doesn't make us stronger; it can break us and make us lose our hope entirely.
in the disenchanted world we live in, departing from the ordinary doesn't make a hero out of us, it doesn't save anyone, there is no salvation. it can only lead to greater problems and complicated situations that you can't undo. and this was the case with The New York trilogy.

unlike City of Glass (1st story) and the locked room (3rd story), Ghosts had an ending,
the mystery was resolved. In the previous detective stories that I had read (like Agatha Christie's) resolution of the mystery came with a sense of relief, the criminal was arrested and efforts of the protagonists had payed off. But this wasn't the case in ghosts, our detective put in the work only to realize it was all for nothing, nothing he did meant anything. and this was so shocking to a teenager me, that I still remember the details of the story. I read City of Glass twice but after so many years I'm still afraid of re-reading Ghosts. That story's coldness and emptiness, scares me.

La trama es muy simple pero DEMASIADO metafísica, reflexionando todo el tiempo sobre sí misma. De alguna forma, fue como continuar leyendo City of Glass, pero con menos historia y desarrollo de fondo.