|Auster: Invisible (Photo by the author)|
Let it be emphasized, I did enjoy reading this book.
Auster has found the winning formula that goes without saying. When you compare "Brooklyn follies" and "Invisible" I found some points that I find a bit of annoying, mainly because my own world view is compatible with these points and I know Auster has written these points in because he knows people like me enjoy them. This only means that he knows his audience very well. The most prevailing of these points is the intellectual East-Coast university sentiment that is so overwhelming that is hyper analytical and self-concious.
The second point that annoys me is sex and how Auster always needs to put some of it in his books. Yes, yes it is part of being human and quite large part. (The fundamental part?) Sometimes it just seems that the sex is there to get a reaction. In this book there is a sexual relationship that annoyed me. First I was disgusted. Then I tried to explain why the characters did what they did based on their tragic childhood. After that I wanted to kill myself for trying to explain the thing out. Maybe it's just my own problem. Why do I need to analyse everything?