His books were half of what I read between age 12-25 (edit: more like 12-20, and I meant only novels, but it doesn't matter here)
Sad to see him go.
Picking up his books again as an adult only took away the magic in some of his weaker works.
Mostly, the magic remained.
The guys learning to play Bach and building a wall, the delirant anon in NYC chasing paper trails, the adolescent boy learning to levitate... the evil man offering glasses in a post-apocalyptic city:
so many memories remain, I don't know much about Paul Auster but I can say he was an influence on my life. Because of randomness (a relative picking Mr Vertigo as a present for me, probably because of book-store recommendations)
Paul Auster's characters always appear as somewhat mythical, living through a personal transformation.
Many of his characters have an aura of NYC artist/cultural authority stick around then, but it does not bother me at all.
Like many of my favorite authors, he injects much of his own personality into the main characters, even with multiple books using a novelist/writer as the main character.
"Music of chance" I'd say, it's a good ride, easy to read, also showcases a lot of his qualities and has a place in my mind forever.
Edit: "Moon palace" is similar in a way. I think those two left the biggest impression in me. They both are probably not the critique's favorites, but perfect as an intro I think.
"Mr Vertigo" was my intro and I think it was a good one as well.
"In the Country of Last Things" is also great, but a bit short for the story arc iirc.
I read the New York trilogy relatively late but these are arguably his most well-received books and I enjoyed them a lot as well.
The other books I mentioned he wrote later, if I'm not misremembering.
I haven't read all of his books, but my personal favorite was "Invisible". I really loved the style and that the book is told from the perspective of three different narrators with sometimes wildly different interpretations of the same events.
Just listened to a segment about him on NPR, apparently his writing themes were greatly influenced by an experience he had as a child where he was standing next to someone who was killed by a lightning strike.
I can thank him for having taught me his language, the intricacies of baseball, for having shown me corners in the state of New York unheard of outside the States. For having explained what love and passion are and aren't, for having instilled dreams and hopes. And most importantly, that life can be lived to its fullest at any age.
A life worth living. Rest in peace, he will continue living while he's read.
The movie Smoke, which he wrote, is one of my favorites. I've enjoyed several of his novels, but none of those are among my personal canon, for what that's worth.
Sad news. '4 3 2 1' is one of my favourite novels with its variations on a theme of a single person's life. The same character's showing up in each thread but in totally different contexts worked particularly well.
I'm actually in the middle of reading it.. I'm still struggling to follow it all, know in which variation I am at a point and see where it is going. But it is sure entertaining
I'm guessing Paul Auster fans will comment here. 20 years ago I read a book that I cannot remember the name and I vaguely remember it was from Auster, but I'm not sure and I have been looking for ages. It was a compilation of short stories with the Noah's Ark somehow in each of them, but the stories were very different besides that part. Does this ring a bell?
Sounds a little like Julian Barnes "A History of the World in 10 and 1/2 chapters", there are several recurring themes (woodworm, boats) but the Ark recurs in several of the stories.
Possibly History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters by Julian Barnes? One of my favourites. Noah's Ark isn't in all of the short stories/essays, but does recur.
The book you're thinking of is likely "In the Country of Last Things" by Paul Auster. While not a collection of short stories, this novel often gets mentioned in relation to discussions about Auster's work involving themes of dystopia and allegorical narratives. The reference to Noah's Ark might be metaphorical, reflecting the themes of catastrophe and survival that are common in Auster's work. If you specifically remember a collection of short stories involving Noah's Ark, it could be another author or a less known work of Auster, as his major works don't typically revolve around this theme directly in the form of short stories.
I have tried to use chatgpt to identify novels and songs from descriptions and it is poor at it. This is despite, I assume , ingesting reviews and descriptions of popular novels and even ingesting the novels themselves. Perhaps the training itself isn't enough for the model to be able to identify what work it is being trained on?
My sister was an Auster buff, she read nearly all of his books when she was around 19, I unfortunately didn't read a single one. But I did read True Tales of American Life, a compilation organized by Auster from NPR-compiled stories (the "National Story Project") of true Americana. That book is a gem I can recommend!
I guess people can’t handle that one of their favorite writers did something despicable. No need to downvote so much, just comes across like you’re trying to conceal the truth, which is that the guy supported a monster.
It’s not flamebait. There was no deliberate attempt to piss people off. That it happened to anyway is entirely the fault of those outraged. It’s a relevant fact. People just get insecure and then defensive when they find one of their favorite people did something stupid. Same thing happened with Michael Jackson whose music was evidently so good that no one really batted an eye at all the awful shit he probably did.
Downvotes are a fine response. An irrational response, but an acceptable one. Indicating a rules violation amounts to attempting to censor a relevant and legitimate concern.
It’s bizarre to me because I’m particularly cynical. Half my role models have been revealed to have done shitty things that make them retroactively feel counterfeit as a role model. It is strange to see people still clinging to the notion that a celebrity they relate with is also a perfect person who can do no wrong. Further, you’re allowed to appreciate that person’s art. Just don’t fixate too much on the person themselves. They’ll probably disappoint you.
I invite you to search for dang's admonishments against flamebait and generic tangents, and see if you might be able to suss out a pattern and/or rationale for that moderation. Here's the site search:
Keep in mind that such acts are judgement calls, and I'll occasionally differ strongly with dang's take. For the most part, however, I find his moderation appropriate. Another point is that most HN moderation is actually performed by members, not mods, and admonisments (my term for his moderation comments) constitute only a very small number of moderator-specific interactions.
The prime directive of HN is "intellectual curiosity" (<https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>), and ... regardless of how you feel about it ... taking a late hit on an accomplished author for one act on his obituary ... tends to be read poorly.
(Those whose lives were overwhelmingly negative may get different treatment. There've been a few recent obits that hit this mark in my view.)
And no, I'm not a mod, nor do I know what others' motivations are. I'm just pointing out the most likely guidelines and moderator rationales which are likely at play here.
It's very much flamebait to go looking for some random shit someone did and then paste it into a thread context-free, which is what the commenter self-admittedly did. Going on about downvotes and how everybody else is a censorious sheep is definitely against the site guidelines so there's nothing particularly odd about that part.
Referring to it as random shit is just yuck. There are lots of people who would like to know the positives and negatives of someone who died. This is a random message board, it's not like ’rgrieselhuber is going to the funeral page and commenting. So it's alright.
This guy supported him in 2009, 30 years after the act. Also, it's no secret RP did not stop his abuses after 1977.
It's literally a thread about Paul Auster, what more context do you need?
HN has a history of being cozy on abusers, supporters etc, which alienates a lot of smart people from participating. It's unfortunate that you chose to die on this hill.
You conveniently ignore my directly adjacent post where I make it clear that I found this "controversy" while attempting to learn more about the author.
The other commenters made him sound interesting, so I wanted to see what his life was like and it turns out that he supported a pedophile. Seems relevant to me as I would want to know that about an author if I'm going to start reading their books.
Apparently these facts about him are just "random shit."
I could say you conveniently ignore the fact your comment was downvoted and flagkilled by other users. And like the other commenter, I'm trying to tell you why that happens - it's not, as you seem to think, because those users are keen on supporting an abuser.
Obviously I didn't ignore the fact that it was downvoted because I specifically mentioned it. I just don't derive my opinions from group consensus or magic internet points. I stand by what I wrote, for the reasons I explained.
I understand the argument you are attempting to make, I just don't buy it.
What would be the context of signing one's name to support something like Polanski that would make it excusable? It's not random shit I went looking for, I was educating myself on a writer I hadn't heard of and came across that action, which I find to be reprehensible.
I'll undo one of your downvotes, I guess. I've never heard of this guy in my life, and I'm not exactly poorly-read. No idea what the connection with HN is.
