...with the idea that Paul Auster CAN be wonderful, but mostly just falls short of it (for me, ofr course, this is no absolute judgement). I really liked the New York trilogy, and then read several novels, and was disappointed every time, while feeling they were so short of VERY GOOD, but they somehow didn't give me the final thrill. I know Auster can be a really great writer because of Smoke and The Brooklin Follies, on top of the New York Trilogy of course - which did give me one of the major thrills of the last few years.

But I tried to read Travels in the Scriptorium the other night and just couldn't. I felt a bit ashamed, because around me people keep going on and on with He is a genius, which he probably is - but most of the time, I should say, he does not go all the way, all HIS OWN WAY, I might say.

So I feel better seeing I am not alone...

Save for the trilogy--which really did seem original at the time--all of what Auster writes has been done before, and better, by numerous French writers who combine elements of noir with the more playful aspects of the Oulipo movement (most notably by Georges Perec, of whom Auster has written). In other words, he's old hat. If you want to find real freshness in this strain of writing, try Jean Echenoz, René Belletto and others still actively writing in France (where Auster's sales have always been solidly good).

Several years ago my publisher sent me a copy of one of Auster's about-to-be published novels and asked my opinion. I said that the book seemed tired, a box of tricks covered with a thin layer of dust. They said that they were feeling the same about him and were going to let him go. Which they did.

Do middle-range authors win Nobel Prizes in literature?

Auster's book sounds boring and pretentious: the sort of thing I describe accidentally when I try to explain "post-modernism" to the barely literate. How could anyone compare this sort of work with Milan Kundera? Are there readers out there who are unmoved by Kundera?

he's sort of like ayn rand, in the sense that his fans are cultish and devoted and his detractors vicious and vitriolic (as a writer, i think he's far superior to rand, though i know a lot of intelligent people who would disagree with me).

barra is right--auster has been hit-or-miss ever since 'moon palace,' and he's usually either brilliant ('leviathan') or disastrous ('mr. vertigo'). a little like babe ruth.

but auster's best work is thrillingly good. 'the new york trilogy' gets the most praise, but his first book, the memoir 'the invention of solitude,' is staggeringly beautiful and heartbreaking. 'hand to mouth: a chronicle of early failure' should be required reading for aspiring writers. and his essays and 'true stories' collected in 'the art of hunger' and 'the red notebook' are mesmerizing and unforgettable. the controversy around his work only deepens my conviction that he is an important american writer who deserves serious attention, and whose work will endure.

Regarding the question, "are there readers unmoved by Milan Kundera?" I would have to say, yes, since he began writing in French, anything post- The Unbearable Lightness of Being, I find my self unmoved. His Czech works, Unbearable, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, The Joke, Laughable Loves, and the one set at the spa with the doctor, I count as personal favorites that moved me tremendously and had great meaning for me. But the last 15 years or so have been disappointing, an empty shell. I'm glad for the fall of the Eastern Bloc, but sad for the loss of the great insights that were in his earlier work. Having said that, he certainly doesn't owe me anything. If I had only read Unbearable, he would rank as one of my top writers for life.

Most Nobel laureates have been "middle-range."

Yes, I know that some now-canonical writers won it. Note I said "most."

In response to the question "are readers unmoved by Kundera", I've only read Unbearabe Lightness, and while I found certain passages interesting, he portrays women as shallow one-dimensional beings and thus I'm not very interested in anything he has to say. The male characters are full-fledged people, but the women are empty and boring. I tried to read The Joke and didn't get very far precisely because of his vapid female characters.

I loved New York Trilogy and several of his other books, but I totally agree with the comment that this latest work reeks of a desperate attempt to overcome writer's block. It's like he was trying too hard to be clever, but didn't have anything real to say. Yawn.

A more relevant Beckett reference, I think, is the Nohow On trilogy, especially Company. There are many similarities (closed space, old age, memories, etc.). This is Auster's darkest, most abstract, most Beckett-like novel. It's not his strongest recent work (I like Oracle Night best out of the past four or five) but die-hard followers will want to read it.

I really enjoyed the fantasy of "Book of Illusions", "Timbuktu", and "Brooklyn Follies". Yes, he is prolific and, no, I haven't read all of his work but I feel he has that "Great Book" inside him. Let Auster be, I think he tells a good tale...

It was a movie, based upon one of his short stories. Truly mind-bending stuff, and it led me to check out his other work.