The New York Trilogy

This novel confused me. Paul Auster originally wrote 3 stories, and they have been put together in this novel. All 3 stories are a variation on the typical detective or crime novel, and I was expecting there to be obvious links between each one (there are some links but they are tenuous). Each novella involves a person having to observe another, looking out for a potential crime which may or may not occur. By observing the other person in a voyeuristic way, the main character immerses themselves in the lives of the observed, sometimes forgetting who they are themselves. The three stories are set in different times in New York, which is why some of the links that are in the book (similar names) etc are purely coincidence. A detective called Quinn in the 1960s is unlikely to be the same person in the 1980s... The 'crime' itself never particularly occurs in all 3 of the novels, which is why this book has become a modern classic, as the reader becomes completely immersed in the story and expectation that something is going to happen, only to end the story with no particular conclusion to the criminal aspect of the story.

I enjoyed reading this novel, but I do think that I enjoyed reading 3 individual stories rather than a full novel. The fact that it was put into one full novel is what I found confusing. Normally there would be one particular tie from one story to the next or a clear connector through each story, perhaps similar to the novels of David Mitchell, but that didn't really happen in this one. I think that the novel as a whole may need a second reading in order to get the most out of it; I'm pretty sure that I've missed something! However, life is getting hectic, so that isn't going to happen... PGCE starts in 2 weeks time... so reading for pleasure will be a bit of a luxury.