The Brooklyn Follies

ISBN: 0312426232
ISBN 13: 9780312426231
By: Paul Auster

Check Price Now

Genres

American American Literature Contemporary Favorites Fiction Literature New York Novel Novels To Read

About this book

Nathan Glass has come to Brooklyn to die. Divorced, retired, estranged from his only daughter, the former life insurance salesman seeks only solitude and anonymity. Then Glass encounters his long-lost nephew, Tom Wood, who is working in a local bookstore -- a far cry from the brilliant academic career Tom had begun when Nathan saw him last. Tom's boss is the colorful and charismatic Harry Brightman -- aka Harry Dunkel -- once the owner of a Chicago art gallery, whom fate has also brought to the "ancient kingdom of Brooklyn, New York." Through Tom and Harry, Nathan's world gradually broadens to include a new circle of acquaintances -- not to mention a stray relative or two -- and leads him to a reckoning with his past.With The Brooklyn Follies, the always astonishing Paul Auster has written what is undoubtedly his warmest, most exuberant novel, a moving, unforgettable hymn to the glories and mysteries of ordinary human life.

Reader's Thoughts

Nancy

I want to say upfront: I enjoyed this. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. The story is clever, engaging, entertaining. I didn't mean to read the end first, but I did, because I had to KNOW. The Brooklyn Follies is narrated by Nathan, a recently divorced cancer survivor who has come to Brooklyn to die (or at least, to write a book about Great Follies He Has Known.) Lucky for him, before he can sink into utter despair, he runs into his nephew Tom, an unhappy ex-academic who is now working in the used bookstore of Harry Brightman, a flamboyant rascal. Their lives are all changed when Tom's niece Lucy - ragged, smart, and stubbornly mute - appears at his door. Auster keeps a slapping pace going, and stories of folly are cleverly interwoven with the first-person narrative.But, oh dear, literary fiction. WHY is it always larded with guys who have been defeated sexually, brooding over hot women, and two-dimensional female characters defined mostly by their sexual proclivities? Why do critics always give literary fiction a complete pass for the very things that they decry in so-called "chick lit"? Somebody tell me THAT.

Núria

Justo en el momento en que en esta novela apareció una niña de nueve años que no hablaba supe con certeza que todo estaba perdido. Así que desde aquel momento la única razón que me quedaba para terminar el libro era para poder destrozarlo después sin ningún tipo de piedad. Ya aviso. Juro que yo lo empecé con mis mejores intenciones, dispuesta a olvidarme de los incontables ratos de aburrimiento que me había proporcionado Auster en el pasado, dispuesta a olvidarme de todos los prejuicios adquiridos a lo largo de los años y a empezar de nuevo con él, pero hacia medio libro ya me entraron ganas de arrancarme los ojos con un tenedor para así no tener que seguir leyendo más. En mi primera adolescencia leí la 'Trilogía de Nueva York' y me impactó como pocos libros me habían impactado, sobre todo el primero de los tres relatos, 'La ciudad de cristal'. Era un libro complejo, inteligente, ambiguo, y desconcertante, que te hacía pensar y abierto a diferentes posibles interpretaciones. Todo lo contrario de 'Brooklyn Follies', que es el libro más superficial, simplón y obvio que he leído en mucho tiempo. Y ni en el mejor de los sueños se puede calificar con el eufemismo de "entretenido", porque es tan previsible que produce dolor de cabeza. Promete ser una colección de anécdotas divertidas de personajes variopintos del barrio de Brooklyn, pero no tiene ni anécdotas, ni personajes curiosos (los personajes son los de siempre de Auster). Y menos aún tiene diversión, sobra decirlo. ¿Y por qué me parece tan malo? No sólo porque Auster ya haya contado lo mismo otras veces, sino porque los personajes son tópicos, la trama es de lo más previsible y está mal escrito. No es que parezca que Paul Auster esté escribiendo con el piloto automático, sino que más de una vez me he preguntado de veras si aquel libro no lo ha escrito Auster sino un negro, aunque lo de asumir que un negro sea incapaz de escribir un poquitín mejor también es un prejuicio. El caso es que me cuesta creer que la misma persona que escribió 'La Trilogía de Nueva York' haya creado también semejante engendro. Se nota que es un libro escrito de cualquier manera, a piñón fijo, para las masas, aunque ni yo (esnob reconocida como soy) me puedo creer que las masas sean tan tontas como para que les tengan que escribir un libro de una forma tan simple como está escrito éste para que se lo puedan leer. Y es que es uno de los libros con menos misterio que he leído nunca, te lo da todo digerido, no es sólo que te cuente todas las motivaciones de los personajes de una forma directa y sin tapujos (y por tanto, aburrida), sino que encima te cuenta incluso qué lectura tienes que sacar de la obra. Y encima es ñoña ñoña, ñoña de verdad. Con reencuentros, reconciliaciones, niñas adorables y traumatizadas que no hablan, historias de amor cogidas por los pelos, fracasados que por fin encuentran la felicidad, muertes efectistas, malos malísimos sin escrúpulos, el once de septiembre, e incluso un rescate heroico... Cursi cursi. Todo especialmente diseñado para manipularnos emocionalmente. Pero conmigo no funcionó, porque juro que a veces se me escapaba la risa con tanto patetismo. Éste es un libro que hace todo lo contrario de lo que se supone que tienen que hacer los libros: te convierte en un lector totalmente pasivo, no te hace pensar, te lleva de la mano y no te suelta ni un momento como si fueras un niño estúpido que necesita vigilancia constante y una guía férrea porque sino te vas a perder. Es paternalista y condescendiente. En resumen es una novela que te atrofia el cerebro Y ¿he dicho que es ñoña? Ah, y contar una serie de anécdotas sobre escritores no te hacen parecer más listo (aunque sean anécdotas de Kafka, que ya conocía, por cierto).

Iván

Paul Auster ha pasado a ser uno de mis autores favoritos. He tenido el placer de conocerlo durante las largas horas de viaje de Concepción a Santiago, cuando el tiempo parece extenderse en una línea sin fin hacia adelante. Paul Auster es mágico, así de simple, o su escritura lo es. Logra visualizar en cada línea las miles de cosas que todos vivimos diariamente pero que pocos sabían que se pueden escribir. Es un escritor de lo cotidiano, de lo usual, pero no de lo que usualmente llamamos usual, sino más bien de una mágica cotidianidad en que el azar (este es su tema principal) va danzando y saltando de un personaje a otro.Recuerdo cuando hace algunos años leí El palacio de la luna y quedé tan boquiabierto como quedé ahora con The Brooklyn Follies. En este último narra las vivencias de un hombre que vuelve a su natal Nueva York para esperar la muerte sin saber, claro, que encontrará la vida. Y esa vida que va encontrando el personaje a través de las peripecias de la narración, nos hace preguntarnos a los lectores si es posible, en nuestros propios días, hacer algo similar. Salir del tedio de lo usual, o mejor aún, encontrar en esa "usualidad" el encanto de la vida. Y a eso me refiero cuando digo que Auster orquesta su sinfonía bajo lo cotidiano, pues es en las simples actividades diarias que los personajes van encontrando el sentido y por tanto la satisfacción de seguir respirando unos minutitos más. Si no fuera porque los libros de autoayuda están tan mal mirados por la crítica literaria, yo aseguraría que los libros de Auster corresponden a esta categoría. Son libros vivos que tienen pulmones y respiran. Tienen boca y hablan. Tienen ojos y nos miran. Si quieren saber de qué estoy hablando, pues adelante y abran la página uno.

Kitty-Wu

Nathan Glass ha sobrevivido a un cáncer de pulmón y a un divorcio después de treinta y tres años de matrimonio, y ha vuelto a Brooklyn, el lugar donde nació y pasó su infancia. Quiere vivir allí lo que le queda de su «ridícula vida». Hasta que enfermó era un próspero vendedor de seguros; ahora que ya no tiene que ganarse la vida, piensa escribir El libro de las locuras de los hombres. Contará todo lo que pasa a su alrededor, todo lo que le ocurre y lo que se le ocurre, y hasta algunas de las historias –caprichosas, disparatadas, verdaderas locuras– de personas que recuerda. Comienza a frecuentar el bar del barrio, el muy austeriano Cosmic Diner, y está casi enamorado de la camarera, la casada e inalcanzable Marina. Y va también a la librería de segunda mano de Harry Brightman, un homosexual culto y contradictorio, que no es ni remotamente quien dice ser. Y allí, en la librería, se encuentra inesperadamente con Tom, su sobrino, el hijo de su amada hermana muerta, a quien hace años que no ve. El joven había sido un universitario brillante, la gran promesa de su promoción. Y ahora, solitario y con unos kilos de más, conduce un taxi, urde teorías sobre «el valor ontológico de la vida de un taxista», ayuda al misterioso Harry Brightman a clasificar sus libros, y está enamorado de la B. P. M., la Bella y Perfecta Madre... Y poco a poco, inmerso en una fascinante red de personajes y descubrimientos; incorporado, en suma, de nuevo a la «espesa jungla de la vida», Nathan irá descubriendo que no ha venido a Brooklyn a morir, sino a vivir..-------Otra gran novela de Auster, impecablemente escrita, que engancha hablando sobre la vida, la muerte, las relaciones ("the ties that bind"), lo sorprendente, la familia.... aunque tu familia no necesariamente haya de ser consanguínea, habla de esos momentos en los que sientes que estas "ligado" de verdad a alguien, cuando son las historias las que unen, las palabras y no el libro de familia. Sobre los perdedores. Sobre los ganadores al fin. Sobre lo efímero.

fleegan

Has this guy ever written anything bad? This novel was fanTAStic. It's about an older guy who's dying of cancer and he basically moves back to Brooklyn to die. But then he runs into his nephew and they become great friends and...so many great characters. There's little Lucy and everything she says (when she's speaking) is hilariously weird. There's the B.P.M. who turns into an actual character in the book. There's Harry (gay) who is interesting. The Chowders, Aurora, just lots of neat characters. He even throws in some lesbians at the end.And oh, this book is FILLED with great sentences. Anyway, the book isn't sad at all. Sad things happen, but they didn't make me cry...and i'm an easy mark for that kind of thing so that's why i say it's not sad. The ending was kind of abrupt and i thought that maybe the author was in a hurry to end it. But also, i think it works because so much happened in the book that to completely resolve everything normally would have stretched it into a giant tome. And no one likes that kind of thing, Ayn Rand.

Terri

I know that there have been mixed reviews of this book. I picked it up in the bargain bin and then looked it up on Amazon. Some loved it. Some hated it, saying that their beloved writer had been abducted by aliens and forced to write this book by money grubbing editors. They claimed that there was no plot, nothing happened and I looked at the cheesy cover with trepidation thinking that I had spent some hard earned cash on what would amount to a dust collector and could've spent it on umm, a latte?Anyway, I must be part of the provincial masses because I simply didn't understand the backlash. I thought the book was well-written and enjoyable, moving along at a clip. Yes it did get muddy in parts, and yes, there was a bit of melodrama that could've been saved for a Merchant-Ivory film, but overall I thought the book was good. I don't know if I've lost my literary skill or if those who were writing scathing reviews had expected far too much or something different. But the characters were well-drawn. In fact, I wouldn't have minded if the book was longer. There was no lesson, characters were flawed but not charicatures (unless that was the point) and I didn't find myself slogging through endless metaphor. So all in all--I liked it. Revoke my English degree if you must, or stone me for not liking one of Auster's premiere works. But truthfully, if you're looking for a quick, fun read then pick it up and just take the dust jacket off to avoid any stares from the far more literate critcs at the coffee shop.

Hugo Emanuel

Uma das personagens de "Slaughterhouse-5 - The Children's Crusade" de Kurt Vonnegut proclama a certa altura que existe um livro que te pode ensinar tudo o que precisas saber sobre a vida, mas que este já não é suficiente. O livro a que se referia era "Os Irmão Karamazov" de Dostoievski. Esta citação levou-me a ler esta importante obra de Dostoievski. De facto, "Os irmãos Karamazov" explora e analisa - aliás, disseca - impiedosamente todas os grandes temas que assombram a humanidade. É abordado, através de duas gerações de Karamazovs, nascimento e morte; fé e ateísmo; amor e hedonismo; perdição e salvação; a diferença de classes; a resiliência, perversidade e grandiosidade do espírito humano - em resumo, quase todos os aspectos e questões que caracterizam a existência humana. "Anna Karenina" de Tolstoi fá-lo também, mas sob uma perspectiva mais "burguesa" e menos impiedosa, desviando o olhar dos seus aspectos mais desagradáveis e perturbantes. Mas de facto "Os Irmão Karamazov" já não contém em si "toda a vida". Afinal, foi publicado no Século XIX e desde então o homem deparou-se com novas questões e dilemas morais, usufruindo de um acréscimo de liberdade religiosa, politica e social para o fazer (pelo menos numa boa parte do globo). No relativamente curto numero de páginas de "The Brooklyn Follies" são abordados quase todos os mesmos temas, e alguns outros, mas sob uma perspectiva mais moderna e menos ambiciosa. Não estou de todo a sugerir que "The Brooklyn Follies" esteja ao nivel de "Os Irmãos Karamazov" ou de "Anna Karenina". A comparação refere-se apenas ao facto de ser uma obra que abrange muitos temas e questões sobre o género humano sobre uma perspectiva moderna. Ouvira sempre esta obra ser catalogada, no contexto da obra do seu autor, como um "Auster-inferior" por isso abordei-a com algum cepticismo. Fiquei agradavelmente surpreendido. A sua prosa simples é viciante, as suas personagens fáceis de amar e os temas que aborda são inúmeros e abordados de uma forma tão directa e simples (mas não simplista) que se torna fácil nos identificarmos e relacionar-nos com estes. A sua narrativa não vai além de retratar momentos e conversas na vida de um leque de personagens bastante variado, sui-generis e credível, mas estes momentos e diálogos são tão interessantes e a forma como comunicam tão enternecedora que se torna um verdadeiro prazer espreitá-los. Da obra transpira ainda um despretensioso e genuíno amor pela leitura e inclui ainda uma belíssima historia sobre Kafka e uma boneca que me humedeceu os olhos. Apesar de ser um livro essencialmente terno e sobre o poder do amor e da tolerância, a crueldade, fanatismo e indiferença do ser humano também se encontra devidamente representada em certos momentos que poderão ser chocantes para alguns leitores. Mas apesar destes o amor e tolerância prevalece sobre a dor e crueldade existente na vida destas personagens, tal como o leitor deseja que assim seja durante a leitura do livro.

David

Plot spoiler included. The book was recommended by friends as a good, if not earth-shattering, read and the book lived up to its endorsements. The back of the book suggests that it is a redemption story: I'm not so sure. It is a contemplation of folly, but not say, of human bondage, a reflection on loss, death and old age (but not of the genre recently utilized by Roth and others), and a contemplation of religion, America, being, writing, and, in short, everything that makes up the great American novel, but is not itself the great American novel. I appreciated the first 60 or so pages the best because of the character development. Once that was taken care of, the book basically sustained itself by a series of plot twists which always included an additional woman. I was left with three questions, not necessarily related: Do the names "mean" anything or are they only highlighted for us, like a laugh track on a sitcom, to show us that they could mean something? How should I consider the frame tale of the 2000 election & the conclusion on 9/11/01? And most importantly, should I be concerned that things really only got good for the two male protagonists when the bisexual male dies, the transsexual leaves (who was only briefly mentioned before she suddenly developed significance), the uber-masculine Foley-walker departs, and, as we are told, the house is filled from top to bottom with three generations of women?

Kelly

Nathan Glass, a retired life-insurance salesman diagnosed with lung cancer, moves out to Brooklyn to die. Throughout the course of the novel, he reunites with his nephew, becomes friends with a charismatic criminal-minded bookstore owner, and receives an unexpected visitor. The title stems from a series of notes Glass is putting together on life's mishaps, eventually to be formed into The Book of Human Folly. It's a touching book with the types of well fleshed-out, "I know that guy" type of characters. A little more feel-good than I was expecting.Auster in his writing deals with unreliable narrators, which on the positive side leaves opportunities for mystery and interesting reflection. But in The Brooklyn Follies, at times Glass might not have been reliable enough to be believable. For a first person narrator, he gives extremely detailed accounts of other people's lives--stories where, in reality, he would have just had a general synopsis of. The academic dialogue will turn off some readers--the nine-year-old seemed overly precocious (but then again, I don't know many nine-year-olds, so maybe that's unfair)...and nephew Tom, who dropped out of grad school during his thesis, talks like a term paper.My favorite characteristic of the story is a question Auster poses of how people find serenity in their surroundings. Nathan finds harmony in Brooklyn, which is why he chose it as his final destination. Tom has a different notion of serenity, dreaming of developing a small society in the woods, escaping American industrialization. Auster manages to make both scenarios seem desirable. Reflecting back on the book, that was powerful to me since lately I've been trying to decide what my ideal environment is--whether it be city, suburban, or rural life. Sometimes the inconvenience of one makes the other seem more desirable, while sometimes small things, like a scene you witness on the street or your favorite diner, makes you appreciate your current setting. Lately as I've been dealing with the obnoxious cost of living in the NYC area, I wonder why people living in extreme poverty stick around when they could be living in small-town America for a fraction of the cost (yeah, I realize how naive that can sound on paper). What makes a place feel like home? Your family, your job, being able to see a musical once a week? For Glass, a large part of it was the culture of the city.

Raül De Tena

Empecemos esta reseña con una declaración a bocajarro: Brooklyn Follies es el primer libro que he leído de Paul Auster. Y esto puede ser algo positivo o algo negativo. La mayor parte de críticas que he leído se ceban siempre en las comparaciones con los logros previos del autor, así que me hacía ilusión analizar de forma totalmente virgen (e inconsciente) si el libro era interesante o no. ¿Cuál es mi veredicto? Pues la verdad es que no he acabado de entender qué es lo que ha hecho tan grande a Auster. Supongo que sus cualidades no estarán en el mejor momento, aunque se le intuye como un narrador de historias excepcional y transparente, con un estilo fluido y directo que ataca directamente a la estructura de lo explicado. Sin embargo, no he podido evitar pensar que, a la vez, Auster es uno de los peores dialoguistas que he tenido la desgracia de leer en mi vida. Puede que sólo sea en esta ocasión, pero es que Brooklyn Follies ostenta algunas de las conversaciones menos verosímiles que he leído en mucho tiempo (¡e incluso comete la insensatez de escribir todo un capítulo a modo de diálogo teatral, sin incisos narrativos!). Además, el libro se escurre peligrosamente hacia la pedantería de baratillo, de tal forma que parece que el autor pretende ensalzar la calidad del producto filtrando conversaciones literarias y referencias a autores que de tan conocidos se han convertido en lugares comunes. Sea como sea, si algo hay que reconocer sobre Brooklyn Follies es que no es un libro aburrido: puede que sea una medianía, pero no aburrido. Auster sabe perfectamente cómo mantener la atención del lector, aunque eso signifique apelar a una emotividad de cartón piedra.

Michael

I remember not really enjoying City of Glass when I read it in the late 80s. I think I was too young--or too inexperienced--to appreciate Paul Auster back then. I'm giving it another go now, since I have recently been blown away by two back-to-back books of his, The Book of Illusions and now The Brooklyn Follies.Both books are told in the first person, but their narrators are as different as night and day. The Book of Illusions narrator is a grieving academic while The Brooklyn Follies narrator is a street-smart insurance salesman. One is small-town, the other is big city; one hates his former wife, the other is mourning the loss of her. But despite these contrasts, they are both equally powerful and equally honest characters (honest in that they are true to themselves, not that they are infallible or saintly souls).The Brooklyn Follies was amazing. Like one of the reviews said, it's a soap opera, and it can be deceiving in its simplicity. If you think that what is happening on the page is trivial or obvious, think again. It's all leading up to a very clean and dramatic final paragraph. What happens in the end is not any great, fictitious mystery, but it is a perfectly timed moment within an exquisitely choreographed circus.I've been mulling over this moment for a bit now, and I'm on the fence about what the story as a whole means in light of that final moment. Could it mean that our lives used to be nothing but trivial follies, and that we used to waste our days hemming and hawing over the banal? Or is it a reminder of what life could be despite the tragedies of our modern world?I think I'm leaning more toward the latter, that we should not allow our tendency toward cynicism to take control of our lives, but that we should remember that sometimes, it's the little things that really matter. And that even a hard-nosed cynic like Nathan Glass can be transformed by hope and love.Absolutely fantastic book. I'm hoping City of Glass will take on new meaning for me now that I'm old enough to understand and appreciate Auster. He is a master storyteller.

Amanda

My first introduction to Auster's work is a good one. He has a wonderful way of writing and created a "story of survival" that might even make a cynic think that things can get better.Follies is set around the time of Bush stealing his election and 9/11. But thankfully, not a lot of time is spent on national events. The majority of time is spent getting to know Nathan Glass, a 60ish year old man who comes to Brooklyn to find a quiet place to die. Recently divorced and a survivor of lung cancer, he's all but given up on himself. Enter Tom Wood, his nephew who he had lost touch with for years. Tom lives in Brooklyn as well and is in the same boat as his uncle, unhappy, feeling without redemption and unable to move forward.Family is key to this novel, not just blood relatives but the strangers-turned-friends kind of family. Everyone is trying to survive and banding together, the motley crue in Follies does just that.

Nereia

Desideravo leggere questo libro da diverso tempo. Fa riflettere che fosse posizionato alla ventesima pagina su ventiquattro della mia wishlist anobiiana. Però sapete tutti come funziona, no? Un libro può rimanere per diverso tempo, delle volte anche anni, tra i to be read e non aggiudicarsi mai il podio nella gara dei libri da leggere nel breve tempo.Questo è quello che è successo al povero Auster. Piazzato in wishlist appena uscito e poi superato sempre in gran carriera da altri libri, magari che non sono mai entrati in wishlist.Poi, grazie a un gruppo di lettura trovato su Facebook e organizzato da un'altra blogger, ecco che all'improvviso arriva il suo momento di gloria. Ho iniziato questo libro con delle aspettative altissime, alle quali hanno sicuramente contribuito la popolarità di Auster, le recensioni entusiastiche di altri suoi libri nelle quali mi sono imbattuta, la bellissima copertina (perché la copertina è bellissima, mi fa tanto pensare a Hopper). Sono sincera, forse sono state le mie aspettative altissime a farmelo piacere così tanto. Perché non volevo, assolutamente, che queste fossero disattese. Ho sperato con tutta me stessa che mi piacesse. E, infatti, così è stato. Per diversi motivi, non solo perché lo desideravo disperatamente.Lo stile utilizzato dall'autore, a tratti quasi confidenziale, l'incredibile quantità dei dettagli forniti da Auster circa la vita dei personaggi, la struttura narrativa, tutto di questo romanzo mi ha piacevolmente colpita e mi ha convinta a leggere tutti i suoi romanzi, prima o poi.La trama, semplice e molto lineare, non spicca di originalità né porta con sé particolari colpi di scena. La particolarità del romanzo, in effetti, è costituita dagli argomenti trattati e dall'umanità dei personaggi. Esatto, avete letto bene, parlo di umanità. Nathan, un uomo di mezza età la cui vita si è evoluta contro ogni aspettativa, dopo un brutto divorzio scopre di essere stato colpito dal male peggiore, il cancro. È proprio con la descrizione della vita di Nathan, che costituisce anche la voce narrante, che ha inizio il romanzo. E poi, come lunga passeggiata, l'autore ci conduce all'interno della vita di Tom, Harry, Rory, Honey e Lucy. E anche loro, come Nathan, sono caratterizzati da una forte dose di umanità. Questo, forse, è il grande merito di Follie di Brooklyn: tutti i personaggi, con i loro difetti e i loro difetti, sono reali. Potrebbero, infatti, tranquillamente far parte della nostra quotidianità, del nostro cerchio se non di amici certamente di conoscenze.Un aspetto che sicuramente non assume alcuna rilevanza nello svolgersi della trama, è la presenza all'interno di tutto il romanzo di dettagli che riguardano la vita di scrittori del passato. Nathan, infatti, oltre ad accompagnarci delicatamente all'interno della vita dei personaggi, fornisce al lettore anche un nuovo modo di approcciarsi alla vita di autori del passato. Non è mia abitudine inserire spoiler all'interno delle recensioni e, anche in questo caso, non lo farò. Dico solo che Kafka è una delle figure che più mi affascina del panorama letterario e che sento La metamorfosi un libro molto vicino a me. Ebbene, con la parentesi su Kafka che Auster inserisce all'interno di Follie di Brooklyn (perché sì, Auster inserisce anche Kafka, sapevatelo) mi ha conquistata completamente. Un romanzo che non considero un capolavoro ma di cui consiglio la lettura a chi, nella parte finale dell'autunno, desidera un libro caldo e avvolgente come una lenta passeggiata lungo un viale alberato coperto da un manto ruggine di deliziose foglie d'acero secche.Recensione presente anche sul mio blog: Follie di Brooklyn

Abdullah

رجل ستيني يبحث عن مدينة صالحة لكي يموت فيها بسلام ، بعد حياة لا يمكن وصفها بالناجحة أبداً فقد خلّف ورائه مطلقة ناقمة و ابنة ترفض الرد على رسائله و سرطان قرر الانضمام إلى المعسكر الآخر . و هناك يلتقي بابن أخته الشاب الذي كان يحلم أن يكونه في صباه و لكنه هو الآخر قد تاه في رسالة الدكتوراة فوجد نفسه دونما انتباه سائقاً للأجرة و من هذه الظروف غير الجيدة أبداً تنطلق القصة و أستطيع القول بكل ثقة أنها رواية أمل من الطراز الأول على الرغم من كون الكاتب لم يغفل ضربات الزمان القاسية و التي لا بد أن تأتي بين الفينة و الأخرى و بحبكة غاية في الدهاء والتشويق تجد نفسك لا تتوقف عن القراءة إلا مرغماً فالرواية جميلة جداً و مكتوبة بعناية فائقة و بحس فكاهي و فلسفي في ذات الوقت . يؤكد بول اوستر في هذه الرواية على صعوبة حياة أبطالها أنها حياة تستحق العيش . أمر آخر ، هناك مكتبة و هناك حديث جميل عن الكتب و الكتابة و الكتّاب و هذه أشياء لا يمكن مقاومتها .توصية مغمضة العينين لحماقات بروكلين .

Taylor Kate Brown

** spoiler alert ** Until the very last page, I was about to give this book 3 stars, but I lost my cool when the last page is - surprise - the book ends on September 11, 2001! And it has nothing to do with the rest of the book and none of the characters are immediately affected.An enjoyable book, a bit slow to start, but it was fine to read just to be reading. But no, the author had to throw that little ending in there for absolutely no reason, it made me quite angry. Listen, I'm all for fiction exploring one of the greatest tragedies of our time, but don't tack it on to the end of a breezy, half-wandering story about a estranged, but otherwise, common set of relationships. There's no point and it make be grumpy and seriously makes me wonder what the author thought it added to the story.Yes, that's right. Pointless 9/11 mentions ending a book AUTOMATICALLY get downgraded a star. Get a new idea and show some respect. A perfectly enjoyable, sweet book turned into an review via rant. ARE YOU HAPPY SIR?

Share your thoughts

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *