What does /lit/ think about Paul Auster?

shit
muh serendipity

>>9785442
>New York Trilogy
It's been 20 years since I read it, but I loved it back then.
>Paul Auster
The traditionalists of /lit/ will tell you that it's pomo trash.

muh red notebook

NYT is the right mix of intellectual, psychological, and thriller/noir to be highly enjoyable. It's also structurally very well put together. His other books tend to be rambly self-important navel gazing shit.

The new york trilogy represents quite well the artist's struggle, loneliness and inability to escape out of an urban environment.
Pretty good postmodernism in my opinion.

I don't think he's very good, and yet his books go down easy and I keep reading him. I like him as a person.

>>9785462
writing should have been banned immediately after the Illiad

I purchased NY Trilogy after seeing it on an Amazon user created list (remember those?), perhaps a decade ago. I couldn't get into it at the time. I think I still have it around here somewhere, in a box, maybe I'll fish it out.