Ugh What the fuck did I just read. A fucking turd Did Auster

>>8245268
Portrait before Ulysses. The other way around doesn't make much sense. Haven't ever read Auster, so couldn't tell.

>>8245268
>tfw took an Auster class where we read 7 of his books

One trick pony, really. The New York Trilogy and Book of Illusions are decent reads, though.

That book ends in a very strange way.

Should've read the New York Trilogy first, your reading of Brooklyn Follies would have been more critical. His books after 2000 are very slice-of-life, which was the pleasure I derived from Brooklyn Follies.

>>8245274
Thanks, anon, I was suspecting that, it's nice to have a confirmation.
>>8245283
>>8245298
To be fair, I was ok with the first hundred pages, I even think his prose can be quite eloquent at times. But it all goes downhill from there, the part when they encounter Lucy is honestly endearing but the whole Aurora arc and the ending in general kind of make me want to puke a little. So many clichés and rushed conclusions of arcs. In the end, the whole book feels like a failure, the second half is at least three times worse than the first half.
I may try The New York Trilogy but Joyce has won my attention for now

>>8245268
The New York Trilogy and his first memoir, The Invention of Solitude were great. Everything else is very hit and miss, with his later books being his weakest.

That and read Portrait before Ulysses. It's not even that long, don't be a lazy faggot.

>>8245339
I intended to read both anyway, I'm lazy but not that much, I was just pondering over which to read first. Also, I've wanted to read Ulysses for a while now and quite excited to do so now that I've started Dubliners. But if Portrait is important to understand Ulysses then I'll go for it first

Sunset Park is forgettable. Oracle Night is uneven. Travels in the Scriptorium is Auster completely disappearing up his own ass.

I actually kind of enjoyed reading them even though I don't think they're very good. His prose is clean and his ideas are interesting, just not nearly as interesting as he thinks they are.

New York Trilogy is the exception and definitely worth reading, although even in the tiny subgenre of postmodernist-hard-boiled, Noir by Robert Coover is better.

You pretty much have to read The New York Trilogy if you want to see why anyone likes him. Everything else is skippable.

>>8245388
Thanks, I'll check that out

Also, this thread has convinced me to read The NY trilogy, I guess I should pay more attention to the order in which I read an author's works.
My local library has such a poor selection of books in English that I usually don't have much choice when I go there which is why Is started with The Brooklyn Follies. Obviously, that was a mistake.