Paul Auster

What are your opinions on Paul Auster's work? In particular City of Glass which I've recently read. It was my first conscious look at postmodernism and I was very impressed by it. As a fan of conventional detective fiction, I loved being fucked around by Auster's postmodern take on the genre.

shiiieeet that's one of the best author portraits I've seen.

I read Oracle Night and enjoyed it immensely because I really dig stories about writers and metafiction, I know his other stuff is mostly that and cant wait to get into it, maybe the NY Trilogy is next for me.

I've read a bunch of his books, reminds me of an American Murakami, they're all kind of samey and go down easy. I think his best is Invisible.

I've only ready his City of Glass but it really blew me away. I'm going to get into more of his work, like the complete New York Trilogy. He recently released a book called 4321 which has a premise that I just can't ignore.

Like I said, City of Glass was my first conscious look at postmodernism and it really sparked the amateur author within me to create a duology where the first part is a postmodern detective story that does away with all conventions like a satisfying denouement and simply makes the reader think of the characters and their psyche. Only to follow up with a sequel that gives the average reader exactly what they want, with a clear by-the-books version of the first part but with an actual conclusion and answer to the unrevealed and undisclosed parts of the mystery in a vain attempt at post-postmodernism. Or has this been done before (it almost certainly has)?

My advice is to do it, follow the impulse. The impetus to write, the pure activity of arranging words on a page can be impeded by early scholarship. Research must correct what is already there, otherwise, you will set yourself up for writer's block. Remember that a creative project can end up entirely different to what was initially planned. I wish you luck.

Thank you user. I got a rush of inspiration after reading Auster. What if you make a postmodern detective novel that doesn't follow the conventions, then follow it up with a sequel/alternative version that goes in the complete opposite direction?

I'm a huge fan of detective/murder mysteries, and the idea of leaving all the answers blank and up to readers' interpretation tickles me. And then giving them the complete answers in a sequel makes it even better, because readers could still disagree and keep their own interpretation.

Just a little idea, you could create a series that constantly undermines an audience's expecations. I recommend watching Twin Peaks if you haven't already. My advice is to start writing or planning it immediately though, give yourself at least an hour or two to collect your thoughts on paper.

post modernism is a dumb term thrown about by people who can't define modernism, never mind what paradigm of modernism has been surpassed.

paul auster writes solid fiction. any of his books are worth a read.

Does Post Modernism even exist?

I've never watched Twin Peaks but perhaps I should.

Undermining audience/readers expectations has always been a trope I love. Books should never be predictable.

I've often dreamed of releasing books in an unconventional way. The duology I mentioned is one of the ideas. I've also toyed with the idea of a trilogy following the same exact story but with each book following the perspective of one of the three main protagonists, written in such a way that you can start with any one of the three novels and get a different experience, with there not being a "correct" order. I've always been obsessed with unconventional publishing. You'll have a hard time finding a publisher willing to take that risk though I'm sure.
Still, best to just write and see how things turn out instead of worrying about possible publishing. Writing is where it's at. If I ever get published, great. But finishing a novel or a series of novels is quite a feat to be proud of anyway.