Paul Auster is a literary bad ass. I wasn't sure what to expect with Invisible after digesting New York Trilogy (5/5). It wasn't as good as NYT but then again, I wasn't disappointed. Invisible follows the story of a young man in 1967. It was never very clear to me why the book was called Invisible- maybe the young man, who dies telling his story, feels as though his life has been invisible. I have a strange attraction to the title because it causes me to think of the word "indivisible" which is very different indeed. I like comparing the two words with the actions and demeanor of the character because he was both. It was a story of intense dedication to a set of morals, while really going off track of the morals of society. Basically, I think Auster could wipe his boots on a piece of paper and it would be worth reading, he's just that good.
It's not the first Auster I'd recommend, as it has some old-man musings that most white male authors get when they start to get old. But I would never turn someone away from it.
4/5
