Review: Invisible

I recently finished the book Invisible by Paul Auster.  I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, so I'm hoping writing it out will help me decide.  I read the book for a book club I recently joined through Meet-up, so it probably isn't something I would normally pick up on my own.  I read the back cover copy and was wary. 

"Sinuously constructed in four interlocking parts, Paul Auster’s fifteenth novel opens in New York City in the spring of 1967, when twenty-year-old Adam Walker, an aspiring poet and student at Columbia University, meets the enigmatic Frenchman Rudolf Born and his silent and seductive girlfriend, Margot. Before long, Walker finds himself caught in a perverse triangle that leads to a sudden, shocking act of violence that will alter the course of his life."

This sounds to me very similar to Sophie's Choice.  Any one else?  Young writer/poet living in New York City, meets an "enigmatic" man and his mysterious girlfriend, a shocking act of violence?  That's alternate copy for Sophie's Choice, not the plot of a separate novel!  It might be blasphemous to say, but I wasn't a huge fan of SC, so I was, like I said, wary about Invisible.  But I wanted to go to the book club and meet people, so I read it anyway.

It wasn't like Sophie's Choice.  The first part described the spring when Adam Walker met Born and Margot.  It was a very whirlwind relationship--from beginning to end was no more than a couple of weeks.  Then there was the "shocking act" of violence, Walker reacted to it, and vowed never to see Born again.  End Part 1.

Parts 2 and 3 are narrated by one of Adam Walker's college acquaintances forty years later in 2007.  He lost touch with Adam after college and didn't hear from him for many years.  Then one day, he receives a letter and part of a manuscript in the mail from Adam.  The manuscript recounts the Spring of Born, and Adam says he is stuck on the next chapter and could use help.  The narrator gives him some advice, and a few days later receives the second part, which he recounts (so the rest of the book is a mixture between the narrator telling how he came to be involved in the story, and the actual story).  The second part of Adam's book is written in the second person narrative style.  The first part was first person, so it was "I, me, mine."  The second part is "you, your."  Second person narrative is very rare, especially for a novel.  I appreciated the risk.

The second part recounts Adam's summer recovering from the trauma of "the event" and living with his sister Gwyn in New York.  During the summer they engage in an inappropriate relationship.  I was enjoying the book until this part.  There are a couple reasons why this changed my opinion of the story.  First, there is the "taboo" of it--instantly turns most people off.  But additionally, I didn't really see the necessity of including these details.  This may be one of those "Bridget doesn't understand literature" things, but I just didn't see how this had any relation to the Born story line.  Finally, the fact that it was written as "you do this" "you say that" made the story very unrelatable.

The third part recounts Adam's semester in Paris, where he meets Born again and attempts to ruin his life in retribution for "the violent act."  Needless to say, that ends badly.  Adam never gets his revenge, and never completely finishes the novel.  However, his college acquaintance, a published novelist, does, with Adam's permission, change the names and publish the book under his pen name.

I know I haven't given you a lot of story here.  I'm never sure how much to give away in a review, and always err on the side of too little.  But here is my rundown of my reaction to it.  I think the only real issue I took with the book was the relationship between Adam and Gwyn.  As I mentioned, I just don't see how it related to Adam's relationship with Born, which was the focus of Parts 1 and 3.  I guess I just feel like Part 2 doesn't quite fit with the rest of the book.  And I did enjoy the shift in narrative.  The story was told by two different people, but with four different points of view--Part 1 first person, Part 2 second person and Part 3, third person, then the college buddy's first person narrative running through.  I appreciate the unconventionality of the second person narrative, though I do think it would've resonated more in a different area of the story.  That summer is not an experience many people have, so saying "you" doesn't quite feel right.  On the other hand, though, saying "you" instead of "I" or "he" disassociates Adam's character with the actions, so the reader may be more ready to forgive him for his transgression, and not hold it against him for the rest of the book.  Also, the 1-1, 2-2, 3-3 relationship between part and narrative style is quite clever.

I think, overall, I did like the book.  The story I could give or take.  But the way the story was told really is quite excellent.  It's full of narrative surprises, not just plot twists.  And Auster's descriptions really are well-written.  Oh, except one more thing I didn't like.  There were no quotation marks throughout the entire novel.  Dialogue was not called out, other than by "he says" or "you ask."  At first I hated it, but then I guess I got used to it, and was more tuned in to when people were speaking.  It also gave more of a feeling of being told a story, than reading it.  Like if someone read a book out loud, you wouldn't always be able to tell when one person stopped speaking, because quotes are sometimes the only indicator.  With this book, someone could read it out loud and it would sound like a story.  Just another narrative surprise, I guess.

So, thanks for reading as I work out my very complex feelings about Invisible  by Paul Auster.  I liked the narrative, but had issue with the story.  It's a give and take--there are few books about which I love everything.  But this book?  Yeah, I guess I liked it.