I think a good rubric for determining how much you enjoy a novel should be assessed after you close the book. I found this readable, but as soon as I put it down, I didn't give fuckall about the any of the characters. In fact some of them perturbed me bordering on disgust. And not in a slimy, well written Patrick Bateman sort of way either. I just really didn't care.

And honestly, how can you write a book about random events and the strange interconnectivity of our lives and introduce every scene with some variation of 'and then this happened'? 'And then something happened that would change all our lives'..Overuse renders this storytelling technique a crutch, a cop out, thinly veiled and old hat. It's all 'random events' explaining an unfortunate event (that really, you can see where the ending is heading halfway through), but very little depth is found in many if not all the characters. Motivations and actions that aren't fully fleshed out, relationship foibles that make little sense, and some things that are simply wildly unbelievable...

But Auster is a revered New York writer so I'm probably just too simple and too midwest to appreciate his unique style.

Κορυφαίος Auster. Το τέταρτο 5άρι που του βάζω μετά την Τριλογία, τον Αόρατο και το Man in the Dark. Και το κέρδισε πολύ άνετα.

He deixat passar un temps abans d'escriure sobre Leviatán per digerir-ho tot. Vaig descubrir a Paul Auster amb l'excel·lent Brooklyn Follies, una història plena de girs i amb un ritme prodigiós en clau humorística. Seguidament vaig endinsar-me en aquesta història, més pausada però amb una àura misteriosa-dramàtica molt cautivadora. Seguint el mateix estil de Brooklyn Follies i pel que veig a El Libro de las Ilusiones, Auster tracta de les trivialitats del destí i les conseqüències d'aquest a partir de personatges entranyablement imperfectes, presses d'un buit ireparable a l'espera d'un canvi. Leviatán tracta de la relació de dos escriptors treballant en el llibre que els arrossegarà a l'estrellat amb el detonant de la mort d'un d'ells (no és spoiler).

Basant-nos en aquesta premissa sembla una història previsible, ja que sabem cap a on derivarà la trama. PRIMER ERROR. Paul Auster et submergeix en la seva narrativa constant de causa-efecte amb un popurri de personatges del tot poc convencionals que ampliaran el focus de la història per tractar temes diversos com desaparèixer del no-res i el fet de saber conviure amb aquesta realitat, la predestinació o les motivacions que tenim a l'hora d'actuar d'una determinada manera.

Durant la lectura em feia la sensació que l'autor s'allunyava de la història principal. Sentint una incertesa molt atrapant i per moments frustració vaig necessitar recapitular per situar-me en un pla més general. A simple vista és un punt negatiu, però vist en perspectiva no deixa de ser deliberat. Compartir el sentiment del protagonista durant la lectura no només per la mateixa acció sinó per la seqüència de fets trobo que et fa entrar encara més en la pell del protagonista i viure-ho en primera persona.

Finalment, considero que aquest és un dels llibres que com es diu en castellà "deja pozo". Després d'un mes aproximadament encara segueixo pensant amb el misteri creat entorn del personatge en qui es planteja la història, el desaparegut, molt més interessant que la del protagonista. El final és molt potent. No m'agrada repetir lectures, però segur que d'aquí a un temps el tornaré a llegir per gaudir de nou d'aquest divertimento tant hipnòtic que m'ha marcat molt.

• Nonostante l'indiscutibile abilità di Auster, la struttura metatestuale e il gioco tra autore, narratore e personaggi sono meno freschi rispetto ad altri suoi romanzi e lo schema narrativo non è per niente innovativo.

• I personaggi principali, soprattutto Aaron e Sachs, sono intriganti ma talvolta rischiano di apparire come archetipi. La loro caratterizzazione sembra subordinata al messaggio filosofico del romanzo riducendone la complessità emotiva.

• L'alternanza di momenti di tensione e di passaggi più lenti e statici non è granché efficace tanto che la percezione è di discontinuità.

• L'indagine sull'identità, la casualità e la connessione tra eventi è centrale in Auster, ma ho trovato questi temi esplorati in modo più incisivo in La trilogia di New York.

• Il finale non mi ha soddisfatta, lo trovo debole, la tensione non culmina in una risoluzione convincente, lascia un senso di incompletezza, di chiusura affrettata.

• No, non sono Auster addicted.

Buna, dar cam atat. Cateva pasaje superbe, dar una din cartie medii ale lui Auster.

Μετριότητα. Το New York Trilogy μου άρεσε πολύ, αυτό με απογοήτευσε. Ϊσως το τελευταίο του που διαβάζω.

I love Paul Auster novels and his are quite simply always my most favorite books to read. I can’t explain it other than by saying that I can sit down and read a large portion of his books at once. The words travel effortlessly from the page to my brain and I just love everything about how his novels are crafted from the characters to the pacing and word choice... everything.

“No one can say where a book comes from, least of all the person who writes it. Books are born of ignorance, and if they go on living after they are written it’s only to the degree that they cannot be understood.”

This novel, Leviathan, was fantastically quirky and had all the Austerian elements: a Paul Auster-like character, unusual coincidences and puzzling contradictions, a story-within-a-story, and all kinds of twists, distortions, and mysteries. Peter Aaron (same initials as our author) is also an author, divorced from a woman named Delia (real life first wife Lydia) and married to Iris (real life current wife Siri, or Iris backwards) with two children David and Sonia (real life David and Sophie). Just as Paul Auster is the writer of the book titled Leviathan that we hold in our hands, Peter Aaron is the author/narrator of a piece we are reading within the book called “Leviathan” as well. Even deeper than that is a third manuscript called Leviathan.

Our main characters are the author Peter and his best friend, also an author, Benjamin Sachs (Benjamin is Auster’s middle name). Peter and Ben first meet each other at a bar for a canceled book reading they were both going to speak at and begin drinking and getting to become fast friends. At the end of their meet-cute, Aaron feels delirious and thinks he’s seeing double, and I couldn’t help but wonder after all these weird coincidences of their meeting if this Ben character is another analogue for Paul Auster; as if both Ben and Peter are types of Paul-like characters. Or perhaps Ben represents another famous postmodern writer? At one point Peter is talking about Ben’s first novel in which as the author he “continuously throws the reader off guard mixing so many genres and styles to tell his story that the book begins to resemble a pinball machine, a fabulous contraption with blinking lights and ninety-eight different sound effects.” This sounds a lot like real-life Paul Auster’s masterpiece novel City of Glass (part of the New York Trilogy, a MUST READ).

I love when Auster makes self-referential characters and devises plots that lead the audience on a cryptic journey. One part I liked the most of this book was when Maria found an address book and was going to visit every person in the book until she could figure out who it belonged to. But her plan, which involved traveling all throughout the city to catalogue these people in the book, involved discovering the mystery owner “in absentia” — basically trying to determine who the owner was based on who he/she was not. Maria also later follows and catalogues Ben during his aimless wandering around the city. Both of these scenes together (the wandering and of filling out a puzzle backwards) reminded me of City of Glass when Daniel believes someone is leaving messages based on the paths they are walking around New York City; the idea to make something out of nothing - is it creative, or paranoid? Peter even mentions at one point, “Knowing what I know now, I can see how little I really understood. I was drawing conclusions from what amounted to partial evidence, basing my response in a cluster of random, observable facts that told only a small piece of the story.”

So what is this novel about? Leviathan is layered with intrigue, betrayal, friendship, love, and misery all in one. It also discusses anarchism, left-wing government protest, identity crises, extramarital affairs, traumatic experiences (several), and murder. There is sadness and giddiness and overall great wonderment in how the pieces of this story fell together. There was much more finality (or was there?) than some of his other novels, such as City of Glass, but because it was a little more straightforward it wasn’t as exciting for me personally. I had no idea what to expect, so I was still captured by the prospect of the mystery. Although it wasn’t my absolute favorite (that would be City of Glass or Moon Palace), it remains an excellent story that I loved and hope to read again one day with a fresh perspective. And since this book was dedicated to Don DeLillo, it made me find some old books I need to re-read again and reminded me of books I need to start reading!

Definitely recommended if you are a fan or have read 1-2 of his books before. But honestly, no prior Auster knowledge is required to really enjoy the book, but knowing the self-references is part of the fun.

Me gusta Auster. Un gran narrador. Puede que este sea el que más me ha gustado de los que he leído. Auster entretiene mientras nos llena de personajes inolvidables. Recomendable.

For me the tale did not merit the lengthy narrative, the book within the book seemed contrived and interfered with the tension. I felt it was too much blathering and was in need of editing. Perhaps it's a case of not being able to latch on to either of the main male characters as sympathetic or interesting. The female protagonists started out as more captivating particularly since I'd seen museum exhibits of Sophie Calle and immediately recognized her in Maria but they were reduced to pretty much sexual objects as the tale continued. Is the narrator Peter Aaron the novelist Paul Auster and is it important to the story? The book talks a great deal about identity and stories and whether Aaron's recreation of Sachs' life is true and how far does truth go when told by another in a memoir. Did Sachs really die in Wisconsin? Is Aaron a reliable reporter of his friend's motivations and life? Is Auster? Do I need to read Hobbes Leviathan to find out? Other Auster books I liked better were Moon Palace, City of Glass.
Favorite quote: Books are born out of ignorance and if they go on living after they are written, it's only to the degree that they cannot be understood. (Auster. Leviathan, p. 40)

Преди шест дни мъж се запалил край път в Северен Уисконсин.“ С това
ударно изречение Пол Остър повлича читателя в живота на писателите. Книгата разглежда отношенията между двама добри приятели романисти – Бенджамин Сакс и Питър Арън. Повествованието се води от първо лице, това на Питър, който след като разбира, че непознат мъж се е взривил край магистрала в Уисконсин, започва да разказва историята на превръщането си в писател. Несигурен още в качествата си, той е поканен на литературно четене на вече утвърдения новелист Сакс, но снежна нюйоркска буря ги събира само двамата очи в очи в затрупано от преспи заведение. Така читател-ентусиаст и майстор-перо започват познанство, което ще прерасне в дълбоко приятелство.

„Левиатан“ разказва биографията на двама писатели. В романа си Пол Остър размишлява кой е мигът, в който писателят става писател и кои са моментите, които преобръщат съзнанието на пишещия. В книгата си американецът разглежда физическото (буквалн��) и психическото пропадане на един писател, нищейки желанието за самоунищожение на по-чувствителните хора и неудовлетворението им от околния свят.

На корицата на „Левиатан“ е Статуята на свободата, безспорен символ на Америка, отъждествяваща в себе си за целия свят думи като свобода, демокрация и равноправие. В България четем книгата през 2016 г., но е трудно да си представим какви пророчески заложби има авторът й, който пише романа още през 1992 г. и поставя в центъра му тероризма и поругаването на Статуята на свободата – 9 години преди атаките на Световния търговски център в Ню Йорк. И ако литературата постфактум разглежда събитията от историята и настоящето, изключвайки фантастиката, то очевидно Пол Остър изключително правилно е доловил американското мислене още в началото на 90-те за страха от разруха.

Романист, поет, преводач, режисьор – Пол Остър е дълбоко свързан с Бруклин, където създава голяма част от творчеството си. „Левиатан“ ще ви потопи в един Ню Йорк, сякаш изплетен само от писатели, художници, ексцентрични стриптийзьорки, дилъри и проститутки, които живеят по тавани, обсипани с книги, ходят на изложби и след работа отиват да изпият по едно питие на някое оживено авеню.

Só tive conhecimento de quem era Auster, pós-morte... Felizmente ou infelizmente, ainda bem que assim foi e que tive logo a iniciativa de "porque não ler algo dele". Assim embarquei, nesta obra que me pareceu mais apelativa.

Com apenas um único livro lido consigo facilmente inferir que Auster é me bastante relacionável. A maneira como descorre sobre as ligações entre pessoas, ao mais ínfimo detalhe, parece que passamos a conhecer o elenco de personagens como velhos amigos. Sinceramente, nunca vi tão bem exposto a falácia ilusória do sonho americano como aqui, não de uma forma didática ou moralista como tanto vemos, mas de uma maneira que coloca a personagem de Ben como o epicentro entre o choque do idealismo dos seus apoiadores com o radicalismo fanático dos seus opositores.

É um personagem bastante humano e complexo, percorre uma jornada ponto a ponto do que se esperaria de um "one bad day guy" mas sem nunca se transformar numa caricatura tosca. Até que ponto Auster, levando em conta as suas posições de mundo, não se estava a escrever a si mesmo em Ben? Este tipo de estrutura de narrativa é me sempre apelativa, como completar um puzzle em regiões de peças isoladas, que à medida que vão aumentando em tamanho, as suas extremidades se interligam ao todo formado uma big picture do realmente aconteceu.

O fascínio que Peter sente por Ben é quase como no Grande Gatsby, mas aqui sob uma ótica ainda mais trágica e humana. Para lá da parte política e de ser uma espécie de "V for Vendetta" mas para a classe média americana intelectual dos anos 80s, é sobretudo, para mim, uma história sobre amizade e memória. Será que teríamos sido amigo de outra pessoa com a qual estimamos muito, noutra idade e contexto? Será que a amizade é à prova dos valores sociais e políticos que defendemos?

Τι είναι ο Λεβιάθαν;
Είναι το βιβλικό τέρας που κανένας δεν μπορεί να γλυτώσει από αυτό. Είναι το πεπρωμένο μας. Κι ο Πολ Όστερ έρχεται να μας το θυμίσει μέσα από ένα απίστευτο εγκεφαλικό παιχνίδι συμπτώσεων που εκ πρώτης όψης μοιάζει με αστυνομικό μυθιστόρημα, αλλά στην ουσία είναι μια φιλοσοφική αναζήτηση.
Η αφηγηματική πληρότητα του Όστερ αλλά και η εκπληκτική σκιαγράφηση των χαρακτήρων του κάνουν το ανάγνωσμα ακόμα πιο συναρπαστικό. Ο καμβάς του συγγραφέα είναι η σύγχρονη Αμερική και κατ' επέκταση ο σύγχρονος άνθρωπος. Η θέση του μέσα στο σύνολο, οι ηθικές του αξίες και οι αναγκαιότητα της δημιουργίας.
Ο συγγραφέας Μπέντζαμιν Σακς θα ανατιναχτεί σε δεκάδες μικρά κομμάτια για κάποιον λόγο. Δύο αστυνομικοί του FBI θα ανακρίνουν τον καλύτερο του φίλο και συγγραφέα Πίτερ Άαρον, ο οποίος προσπαθεί να διαφυλάξει κάποιο μεγάλο μυστικό καθώς και την μνήμη του, επί σειρά ετών, επιστήθιου φίλου του! Καθώς ο αφηγητής Πίτερ κάνει την αναδρομή στο παρελθόν, εμείς σαν αναγνώστες καταλαβαίνουμε πως ό,τι συμβαίνει γύρω μας είναι αναγκαίο, τυχαίο αλλά και συνάμα αναπόφευκτο.
5/5