I only read "City of Glass" but I plan on reading the other two stories.

I thought "City of Glass" was incredibly thought provoking. So many interesting ideas about identity and language. It had me guessing the whole time. ( )

Yeah, he's brilliant. I kept turning the pages. This is a airport/transport book, but not a beach one: The lives are so bleak, human stripped of any human connections. The mystery, the case, is all and it's not really going to be solved. As someone else here put it: "The inability to find or discover the other becomes the inability to understand oneself."

I'm not sure to whom I would recommend this,or any Auster fiction. But this is a good introduction to him. ( )

Was not impressed: I read this book because I loved Paul Aster's Brooklyn Follies. This compilation of 3 short stories may have well been written by a completely different author. They are short detective stories that are slightly intertwined. I did not enjoy this book and do not recommend it.

An existentially probing series of interrelated detective stories. In each of the three stories in "The New York Trilogy" the search for the other is sublimated and internalized as a search for the self. The inability to find or discover the other becomes the inability to understand oneself. Auster's style is sparse, in the style of the great pulp detective novels of the early part of the 1900s. A philosophically intense and brilliantly constructed novel that should be standard fare in high school and college literature classes. One of the very best contemporary novels. ( )

Blue, Black, Quinn, Stillman, Fanshawe - I got it, I think, but now I've forgotten what happened and why.

These three stories set in New York City seem at first unrelated but certain common themes soon emerge; the writer’s relationship with his/her work and characters, the fine line between illusion and reality, between sanity and madness and obsession, questions of identity are a few that come to mind. Having read several other Auster books, I immediately felt at home with his familiar voice which isn’t to say that I was able to make head or tails of these stories. One clearly senses Auster is working out his personal issues about writing here but he does so imaginatively and with a sense of mystery that kept me hooked for the ride, and though this book made me think, I felt slightly bewildered, with no idea where I’d ended up by the time it was over. ( )

I took The New York Trilogy (by Paul Auster) with me on my vacation to
Manhattan. Good choice. These three somewhat related non-traditional detective
stories are very thought provoking and have strong themes of obsession,
identity, & anonymity. There are many literary references which I enjoyed and
it was fun to read in NYC (my first visit there).
Rating: 4.0 ( )

This was my first exposure to Auster, so it took me awhile to get into the rythm and wit of his writing. As a result, I liked the second better than the first, and the third better than the second. Each was about someone re-making themself, as opposed to re-discovering themself. I really enjoyed the descriptions and the way each made me feel as if I were standing next to the character watching it unfold. I have the Book of Illusions on Mt. TBR and look forward to getting to that one, too. ( )

City of Glass 1985
listened to this in 2000. found it hard to follow. this time found it strange but okay. kind of fun to follow his routes in nyc. the guy sure can walk.
Ghosts
interesting 09.09 ***

I can remember enjoying this intriguing book when I first read it years ago. ( )

I found this book fascinating, although I'm sure I missed some of the interrelationships between the characters (and authors). This seemed to me to be a very clever exploration of what it means to be a writer and the relationship between the writer, his characters and the reader. Further interwoven into these stories is a relationship to a classical piece of fiction: 1) City of Glass to Don Quixote, 2) Ghosts to Walden and 3) the Locked Room to Fanshawe. These stories are complex and do not have traditional plots so reader beware. But if you want to read something different and thought provoking I recommend you give this a try. ( )

Good? Yes. Engaging? that's a different question...: "The New York Trilogy", by celebrated author Paul Auster, is made up of 3, somewhat interlinked, long stories which were originately published separately at various times around 1985-86.
There is no doubt that Paul Auster is a terrific writer so I won't even get into that aspect of the book.
Let's get down to what's really important by trying to pinpoint the subject matter, i.e., what "the new york trilogy" is really about: in a sense, it's a mystery, in the true sense of the word, because even in the end many questions (most, I dare say) are left unanswered, many stones unturned and many cues are simply left hanging in the air.
The NYT has been described as metaphysical detective fiction and the description might in fact prove apt: each of the 3 stories follows the investigations of one man which always turn into an obsession, making the man completely lose touch with the reality. The NYT is thus much about mental processes, we see each of the 3 main chracters gradually become so absorbed by their quest that they lose all sense of proportion and stop thinking like the rest of us.
It's also a novel about writing because writing, depicted as the greatest obsession of all, always plays a role in the stories.
There is also a definite surreal element in most stories and, quite often, they reminded me of Dino Buzzati's short stories.
The author is obviously very pleased with himself, playing with his own name (much like B.E. Ellis does in his recent "Lunar Park") and toying with the other character's names (which pop up in different stories, alluding to the possibility of a strong link between them all).
Did I like the book? As much as it's clever and well-written, it leaves you with a sense of un-completeness, too much stuff remains only vaguely hinted at (I was never one to fall for open-endings. Plus, everything is open here, much more than necessary) and in the ends, the whole thing sound more like an elaborate intellectual game that engaging fiction. Thus, I give the novel 3 stars although this is in no way diminishes my appreciation of the author's talent.

Being the first book read by Paul Auster I didnt really know what to expect. Naturally I thought the the book contains 3 individual stories, but apparently they strongly influence each other in a way I havent yet completely understood. I know that the stories have the same roles and characters but it's not chrystal clear who is who and so on. Im not saying it's a terrible book, but not just my favourite one. I've come to the conclusion that romantic and older literature is better for me rather than books from the 20th and the 21st centuries. ( )

It is not because of “City of Glass” that I am continuing into the second book of this trilogy; it is because the second installments are contained between the same covers and I neglected to bring an alternate book to the office. It takes hard work to make detective stories dull and to suck the intrigue out of mystery; but Auster seems to know how it’s done. It seems like he had just finished grad school and was filled with the conviction that contriving a book around concepts masquerading as characters who stumble around in symbolic relationship to each other would give readers a wonderful chance to engage with his totally unoriginal thinking on millennia old matters such as chance and free will. His digressions into the age of exploration and the origins of language are entirely forgettable. I hate books that hinge on cleverness; but I pity books that aspire (how ambitious) towards cleverness and fail, ever, to arrive there. ( )

Three early novellas, all set in New York and vaguely similar , metaphorical, supernatural and self referental .
After having enjoyed some of Auster's later work I was looking forward to this but was sadly disappointed, particularily by the lack of any sort of end to any of the stories and the inward looking nature of the writing was a bit trying.
Ok but not as good as I had hoped (isn't that always the way) ( )

This is a great read that gets better as you go along. The New York Trilogy is composed of three at first seemingly unrelated short novels, but which all end up parralleling each other and reinforcing each other's themes. They are all detective mysteries: City of Glass is about an author who through a misunderstanding is hired to track an abusive father after his release from prison; Ghosts follows the story of Blue, hired to track the comings and goings of a man who has not much going on in his life; and The Locked Room is about the mysterious disappearance of man's childhood friend. All of these novels are unconventional in that the lines between the detective and his subject are often blurred. The detective's personality usually undergoes radical changes, having lost himself in the hunt. Sometimes he becomes like his subject or totally invents the subject. With the breakdown of the character usually comes the breakdown of the standard narrative technique -- the NY Trilogy at these moments becomes a work of metafiction. Auster mentions the series itself in part III and is himself a character in part I. Although self-referentiality compromises my interest oftentimes in the storyline, the NY Trilogy is filled with thematic jewels that make it a highly satisfying read. Auster is great at incorporating literary theory and philosophical thoughts into his work, and these, above the story itself, are what make the book.

Part III is by far the most interesting in the book and is also what ties all three novels together, giving coherence to the series' themes about identity, the power and limits of language and the nature of story-telling itself. Although all three stories are independent and can be read on their own, the New York Trilogy must be read together as a whole in order to fully appreciate the work. ( )

Tre noveller - Glassbyen, Gjengangere og Det stengte rommet. Betegnet som Austers mesterverk, men ikke blant dem av bøkene hans som har gjort sterkest inntrykk på meg. ( )

Cleverly well written stories, but in the end all are very dark and somewhat disturbing. The lead in each story gets sucked into doing detective work that he should not have and ends up losing a great portion of his life and soul. I didn't even bother with the 3rd story. ( )

otherwise a fan of Auster, i was disappointed with this one. but i must shake my head dubiously at any author who writes himself into any story. big no no in my estimation.

a trio of rather strange but persistently uninteresting reflections on the process of writing and detective work. more than one person impersonates a hobo.

did not love this one. can't endorse it. ( )

http://www.bookcrossing.com/journal/1... ( )

At first sight, it’s not at all what I expected - and it’s not at all disappointing, but just different. The 3 short stories are “City of Glass”, “Ghosts” and “The Locked Room” and they are mostly presented as detective stories - and maybe that’s why I expected the crime and the chase. But there is no crime, which makes the chase a lot more interesting and painful.

http://meerchant.wordpress.com/2008/0... ( )

Three seemingly separate novellas that are completely intertwined! Brilliant! ( )

Auster's trilogy is intoxicating stuff. All three works revolve around the same idea, of self and communication and consciousness. The most memorable of the stories is the first, "City of Glass," in which a broken-down genre writer assumes the identity of Paul Auster to deal with an investigation, and to earn a little extra cash. The piece is as multi-layered as an onion - there are so many ideas here that it's possible to become obsessed with one over the others, and then when you read the book again you form different opinions. It's amazing stuff. ( )

Fantstic collection of three short stories that knock together ( )

Read it again after 15 years. This time in the original language. The gold shimmering memory my mind has embedded it in has got a somewhat less bright glow, but not much.

At times Auster excelles in mysticism. He masterly mixes reality with fiction. Who doesn’t jump when a mysterious voice in the telephone asks for the private investigator Paul Auster? (If you haven’t read the text on the back of the book, of course.) And who is really writing these three stories? Are they all the same story? Or how is it?

The author also has skilfully entwines anecdotes into the story, sometimes he elaborates on them, and they really feels like strong small stories inside the story. (He has shown examples of this later, for example in “Oracle Night”.) And the language is very relaxed, but still, you don’t become inactive as reader. No, the stories are interesting enough, and sometimes you get startled, so it is just comforting to be able to rest in the language.

No, I don’t think they are all the same story, but, for sure, they touch each other, in several planes. However, I must say – actually, really – that at times it feels pretentious and speculative, and this pulls down the grade a bit. Still, clearly a four!
---
Läste om den efter 15 år. Den här gången på orginalspråket. Det guldglimmande skimret mitt minne har bäddat in den i har väl mattats något, men inte så mycket.

Auster briljerar stundom i mystik. Han blandar verklighet och fiktion mästerligt. Vem studsar inte när en mystisk telefonröst frågar efter privatdetektiven Paul Auster? (Om man låtit bli att läsa baksidestexten förstås!) Och vem är det som skriver dessa tre hostorier egentligen? Är alla samma historia? Eller hur är det?

Författaren kan också konsten att väva in anekdoter i historien, som han ibland broderar ut, och de känns verkligen som starka små historier i historien. (Detta har han ju visat prov på senare, inte minst i "Oraklenatten".) Och språket är mycket avslappnat, men för den skull blir man verkligen inte inaktiv som läsare. Nej, historierna är såpass intressanta, och man hajjar då och då till, att det bara känns skönt att språket är vilsamt.

Nej, det är nog inte samma historia allihop, men visst går de in i varandra, på flera olika nivåer. Dock, måste jag säga att stundom blir det - faktisk, nästan - lite pretentiöst, det drar ner betyget något. Ändå en solklar fyra! ( )