El libro en si tiene su gracia, tiene estilo y la prosa funciona perfectamente, però el argumento es tramposo y estafador. Una penita, porque estaba disfrutando mucho con la novela y por culpa del tercio final es muy decepcionante. Un chasco. ( )

It had a lot of promise, but I just lost all heart for it today when I saw Auster had signed Bernard-Henri Levy's letter regarding Roman Polanski.

ETA: Interesting to note this has been flagged as 'not a review.' It seems a very clear review. The book had promise, but not enough promise to overcome my disappointment in the author's conduct. Other readers may wish to consider this information in their decision to purchase the book, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. I wonder if whomever flagged this review considers opinions about author conduct inappropriate for book reviews in general or simply disagreed with me on this issue and felt moved to censor me in some way. If the former, hey, a principle is a principle and I have to bow to your purist view of book review writing; if the latter, please reconsider your motive in relation to intellectual freedom and freedom of speech.

I detect a pattern in Paul Auster's novels, and that's bad, and after reading only two of his books! There is an older man who is writing something, but what he is writing of of no particular significance, even to himself. The women in his life are going through tough times, as is he. People have died, left them, cheated. The old guy most likely cheated on his either dead of ex wife or else he behaved like a schmuck in some other way. There is some kind of fantasy thread that runs through the old guy's head, or more than one, but they don't go anywhere. Everyone decides to just keep soldiering on because it isn't unbearable. Then the book ends.

I had heard an interview on the radio with Auster about this, his newest book, which is what got me interested in reading him. In the interview Diane Rhem made much of the alternate universe in which there was a civil war in the U.S. which started after, and because of, the way that George W. became President in 2000. That alternate universe is a story the the old guy in Man In The Dark is telling himself, it's not the thing that he's writing. About halfway through the book Auster gets tired of it and has the old guy kill off the character in his little story, who had crossed (back) between universes with orders to kill the old guy. Then the little story of the little civil war is just dropped.



Alternate history is a respectable sub genre of science fiction. Auster did not do justice to that sub genre. In fact it was a waste of time reading it. Repetitive, self referential writing about a fictional author who writes about himself is what turned John Barth from a brilliant novelist into a crashing bore. Auster is well on his way to joining Barth in that category.

I'll Never Forget The Day I Read A Book!

I've read all of Auster's novels and love his sensibility. This particular one is not his best; the plot is a little rocky, more of the seams show through than usual, but it had enough of his reflective musings about the stories we tell ourselves to keep me with him. Don't start with this one, but definitely read Auster. ( )

I've read all of Auster's novels and love his sensibility. This particular one is not his best; the plot is a little rocky, more of the seams show through than usual, but it had enough of his reflective musings about the stories we tell ourselves to keep me with him. Don't start with this one, but definitely read Auster. ( )