- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
"Powerful, original, imaginative... ."--Washington Post
Posted August 24, 2013
And one that I keep coming back to and consistently recommend. It was my first Auster and I keep hoping that he will write something else like this. The landscape he paints is unique ad wonderful. Myself, being both a scavenger and a "re-user" of abandoned items I loved best the description of life outside and how each type of person coped (or didnt).Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 8, 2005
Anna Blume, a young woman, is searching for her brother who disappeared ( a letter is the last sign of life from her brother ). It brings her to a country unknown and without a name. Apparently terrible things happened not so long ago. The people there have to live in poverty and hardship with a never ending struggle with all sorts of criminals. At first sight this book has some things in common with a SF novel. Something very bad happened, civilization is almost gone. But is Paul Auster really a writer to use science-fiction ? He writes about coincidence, about the intertwining of fiction and reality and about individuals in relation to their relatives ( as is the case with Anna Blume ). The ( coincidental ) meeting with the father is one of the most returning subjects. Why would such a writer use science fiction ? Who knows better than Paul Auster himself ? In an interview with L.McCaffery and S.Gregory ( The Red Notebook and other writings - edition Faber & Faber - London ) he says (about The Country of Last Things) that there are specific references to the Warsaw ghetto but also to events taking place in the Third World today and that New York is turning into a Third World city ( again: according to Paul Auster ). As far as I'm concerned I think that everyone has the right to interpret this novel as he/she wants. I like this novel because Anna Blume is a brave and touching character in search for her brother.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 29, 2005
Posted October 17, 2002
I think people tend to take Auster too seriously. Auster writes nice, interesting books, but he never was or will be a great writer. This I say despite the fact that he tries to portray himself as so ¿ using intertextuality, complex narration, brooding and "deep" imagery - and this is his problem ¿ he does it as an amateur. It seems to me that Auster made his homework and read the masters, however, not hard enough. He doesn't have what they have, or have so little of it, yet he approaches writing as if he was one, and the result is dissatisfying. He is simply not Kafka, or Henry James, or even Salman Rushdie or Coetzee. For those of you who have some background, reading serious stuff ¿ and those who've done it know what I'm talking about ¿ stay away or you'll be disappointed. For others, who would like to enjoy more than average level of writing ¿ enjoy.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 25, 2000
I personally believe this was a wonderful book. Paul Auster is a genius. I've read other books by him and every time I leave feeling as though I've learned something. I definitely recommend this book to anyone.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted April 27, 2009
No text was provided for this review.