The New York Trilogy by Paul Auster REVIEW

For people who see messages in their bowls of Alpha Bits.

Buy The New York Trilogy on The Book Depository (yep I'm an affiliate):
Also buy The Name of the Rose:
And the splendid White Castle:

JSTOR - a database of academic articles and publications. It's accessible to all college students and staff worldwide (I think), but everyone can also read - though maybe not download - their stuff if they register:
Here's ProQuest, another such database:

If you like my reviews and want to help the channel grow - or just want to see what my plans for it are - check out my Patreon page:
Follow me on GoodReads!
Follow me on Twitter!

[JohnnyCashavetes]

My man. I think City of Glass is the perfect starter for postmodern fiction. It's got all the staples of the genre, but in a typical no bullshit Auster prose, so it's easier to read than most (all?) of his contemporaries. I think the Trilogy suffers a bit from City of Glass being so good, as the other two stories don't really live up to it, although The Locked Room comes close.

I read it 15 years ago as a novice reader so I never made the connection, but it doesn't feel very New York or very Trilogy to me either. City of Glass did feel very New York to me at the time, but that's because I'm from New York, so it just happened to reflect the same city to me, but it could have just as easily reflected Chicago to people who lived there (as it reflected your own city to you). The other two didn't feel New York at all. Or the next two acts of a trilogy. City of Glass might have been the better title for the collection as they all deal with observation, and could represent any city.

I assume you read the New York Trilogy in English this time. Any differences from your first encounter in an Italian translation? Auster always assumed his success in Europe was that his prose was easier to translate into other languages, but translation in fiction is still a fascinating subject to me. Oddly, we talked about this book specifically on this subject years ago. I doubt you remember.

[dannigreen]

I'm so happy to see your review of the New York Trilogy. When I first started to read this collection of novellas, I was a bit confused, but half way through City of Glass I could not have been happier. You said it perfectly; Auster uses the conventions of the detective novel to investigate how people make meaning. We are each the detective, looking for clues to answer the question, What is life about? This book hooked me on Auster. But then again I also love experimental fiction and post modernism, so there's that.

I'm a native New Yorker, and I do think that the setting of New York City features heavily into the novellas. New York City is forward and hyper energetic place. There is neither a full moment nor nothing to do. I love that he contrasts that with stories of people trying to find direction in life. Auster is partly not famous in the US because his novels are about how meaningless life in the US is, which goes directly against the notion of America as a place of self-determined people who pride themselves on strict, clear definitions of the Individual and one's role in a Democracy. Even though NYC is tied into the very foundation of America (I use American to engage the subject of slavery, politics, government, ideology and empire, and globalization) NYC is profoundly not like the rest of the country. I don't say that as a point of pride (although that too) but more because I have been to other places in the country and can saw that based on experiences.

My favorite novellas is Locked Room. I loved it so damn much. It confounds you to a frustrating degree. It lacks logical cohesion and hat is the point. I also love that he deconstructed the idea that novels/art give us knowledge.

[liquidpebbles]

just finished reading it, still dont know what to make of the ending but lived the whole book nonetheless and now I'm very interested in the rest of his bibliography

[Sebadiah]

While the story feels modern, I love how the nature of communication back in the 1980’s (no internet, cell phones, etc.) allowed the detective to get so lost in himself and his mind in such an overwhelming way during his time on the case. Like a Hitchcock film I suppose, or the twists and turns of Gone Girl, I love how it kept the dramatic tension of the possibility of being discovered, until a certain point in which you doubt almost everything about the story. The writing of course is far superior to those others I mentioned (and is a whole topic in itself, as you alluded to), but I didn’t expect to be quite as swept away also by both the premise and the plot, and the mysterious character he was following. I think that is why the next two stories in the book are a bit of a letdown. Love your reviews.

[nicdafis]

Just realised that I've been confusing The New York Trilogy with Amistead Maupin's Tales of the City, for about 20 years. I am a stupid.

[kiri]

I have no clue what to think after reading this book, the first story’s complete incompleteness still frustrates me.

[zoezheng]

Have just finished New York Trilogy and when I logged in YouTube and checked my subscription for the first time in half a month I found you have uploaded the review of the book! What a coincidence. If I was a main character in New York Trilogy, I would definitely look for clue and meaning then and there. :)
The book is quite intoxicating, sometimes disturbing in some weird way, but I just could't put the book down. Definitely sensed some Borges vibe, especially in the part where Quinn researched Peter Stillman in the City of Glass. Though the ending reminded me of Kubrick
I see these three novellas as one way to explore how the perceived 'truth' of one person can twist the reality, the power of make-believe and symbols. In that sense, it reminded me of the film Dans La Maison.
As for White Castle, it is less enigmatic in my view. And no wonder they are all about writers and detectives. For writers and detectives are like marathon runners with endless quest and unclear ending, both encounter a lot of self expectation and frustration, both in solitude, spending a lot time with oneself, easily lost into the inner world.

[gregorydowling]

You've persuaded me to have another go at the trilogy. I got irritated by the feebleness of the detective story elements and it didn't seem to me that the other stuff really compensated, but maybe I was looking for the wrong things...

[timkjazz]

Totally love these books, the detective novel in a post-modern world. Auster hits a grand slam as far as I'm concerned.

[chokingmessiah]

Nice review. Clever video description.

[roniklinkhamer]

Thanx once again for your bookreview, The New York Trilogy I've read a half year ago or so, I remember I loved it.
This long cold winter I have been reading lots of pomo and popomo American novels, and I owe many of them to your advise. But because they were so many books, most of their memories turned into a big (delicious) soup and to be honoust it's hard for me to remember each individually. That;s the problem with my very bad memory, due to five heavy brainconcussions in my past added up with old age leaping in, I suppose. ;-)
Nowadays I have to read a book twice, the second time in a close-slow-reading kinda way to be able to remember it. Like Herzog from Saul Bellow; however much I knew I loved it, I had to 'play it again, Sam' to be able to remember the story and another time to really start to appreciate the utter beauty. The implication is that I just as well might be stopping buying new books and start to reread all the books I read. It's a problem as well as a pleasure, if you know what I mean.
I do wonder sometimes if I'm the only one who has to deal with that situation.
So yeah, I will read it again this year.

[ORESTIS]

This is a really significant review of "The New York Trilogy". Irrelevant to the topic you are talking about, I would like to mention that Svevo's "Zenon's Conscience" was recently published in Greek in a new translation, therefore I am very interested in your opinion about this novel. Could you please upload a review sometime in the future?

[medhatsaadoun]

Excellent review! I was wondering, are you going to bring some more Cormac McCarthy content?

[hanneees]

I watched this video and it really helped me with my book report I had to do for this book. In my opinion it´s a great book, but not that easy to understand and interpretate.
Anyways thank you and greetings from Germany!

[emilioocchialini]

Ti scrivo che ho proprio finito 20 minuti fa di leggere le ultime pagine... Mi sono imbattuto in questo libro settimana scorsa, mentre tornavo a casa dall'aula studio ho fatto uno dei miei consueti salti alla feltrinelli della mia città giusto per staccare la testa tra un libro là e qua ma senza voler comprare niente. Poi "capito" nella sezione "English books" e dò un occhiata a Paul Auster (di cui già mesi fa lessi le prime due pagine di 4321 e ero stato molto tentato di comprarlo, anche se poi, guardando la lunghezza del libro, ho rinunciato). Ho pescato The New York trilogy, ho letto le prime due pagine e il mio portafoglio ne è rimasto vittima. L'ho divorato però mi trovo d'accordo con te riguardo al titolo. Prima di comprarlo avevo appena finito di leggere Just Kids di Patti Smith, libro che ho amato alla follia e che mi ha fatto respirare arie e atmosfere della New York di fine anni 60 e 70 in ogni singola riga e virgola, quindi speravo che leggendo The New york trilogy avrei continuato a rimanere nel mood new York ma in effetti come dici te rimane parecchio in secondo piano (anche se nelle prime righe la premessa del protagonista, ovvero che gli piaceva camminare per le strade di NY, sembrava partinente). A parte questo, le trame dei singoli racconti mi hanno fatto sprofondare direttamente nel delirio metaletterario di Auster. L'ho letto per puro intrattenimento ma i discorsi e le riflessioni (sull'intrattenimento stesso del resto) che fa sono molto più complessi, ad una seconda lettura forse potrei trovarlo ancor più interessante.
Ah comunque ho letto la tua stessa edizione e devo dire che Auster da leggere in lingua originale pare molto semplice, non ho avuto nessun particolare problema durante la lettura, quindi se nei prossimi mesi vorrò mantenere attiva la lettura in inglese penso che gli altri suoi libri saranno la mia prima scelta. E poi penso che la prossima settimana inizierò Infinite Jest finalmente ;)

[LiviaJapan]

Ho l’esame su questo libro. Ancora devo cercare di riordinare cosa ha voluto mostrare Paul Auster con questo romanzo.
A quanto ho capito ci sono identità mescolate, ciascun personaggio soffre di problemi di personalità, depressione e nel complesso l’autore cerca di lottare con il suo ego. Quinn rappresenta l’ego di Auster.

[Dreamingforwaking]

Good review. I don't know if you got my message, but I really HIGHLY recommend you try Novel Explosives by Jim Gauer, it's a mix of Pynchon-Wallace and Gauer, and is fantastic, dense AND thrilling at the same time. Just an overlooked masterpiece of book, and I've read all Pynchon, most DFW, a good deal of Bolano, and Michael Cisco and Gass, but it might be better than Pynchon, or at least equal, and I love Pynchon. At least skim the backside of the book, you won't go wrong (based on viewing many of your reviews), 100% guaranteed!

[antoniojimenezhernando]

Great novels. The way they are related to each other reminds of Samuel Beckett's trilogy. I find here a copy of both Borges and Beckett's ideas. Great accomplishment though.

[nachobarro]

Hi mattias, great review. For a non native speaker like me, how difficult it is to understand ? I bought recently a copy for 2€, but it would be like the first serious book that I’m about to read in English.

[alexander]

Is it just me, or does the stuff Auster pulls off in City of Glass seem kind of hokey in 2019? I only read the first book of the NYT and, while I enjoyed the first half, I absolutely loathed the second half. I never read Postmodern books to "enjoy" them, but they usually make valid intellectual points that always get me thinking. City of Glass, to me, read like a copy and paste of Derrida and Foucault. Like, ok, this stuff can be interesting and was revolutionary in the 60s and 70s. But now? It didn't seem to be making any serious points beyond relativism this and relativism that. Which...cool. Maybe this stuff was salient in the 80s when this was published, but I feel like I've heard the basics of Postmodern philosophy so many times by now that I was hoping he'd play with them instead of just regurgitate them. To me it read as a thinly veiled riff on more original thinkers.