I was very disappointed with the ending of the City of Glass. Like all great literature, you hope that the end will mount up to something that will make you think outside the box and stimulate your mind however it did not take this turn but I will away from this and look more closely and how it can be compared to other deactivate books. As deactivate books go the leading male character always seem to be very strong mentally and physically. Take the example of Auster he live outside Peter Stillman house for months without sleeping or even eating a regular amount of food a day. Also in the case of Marlow from the Big Sleep, he stops at no end to find out the killer even if he breaks the law or risks his own life.
Even though many of us have disliked this book, it takes a new turn in terms of a detective novel. Not many novels have the author playing an actual character and in fact not having a detective investigating the mystery is a new notion for a detective novel. To sum up I feel that this book can a new turn of detective books perhaps the author is trying to relate his book to perhaps a new world which we exist in where not everything is so idealistic and more things are realistic, just a thought to consider.
Pranav Shankla
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
City of Glass
The book in all made me feel sad for Quinn. Throughout the whole book it seemed that he was grasping for a true identity or one to hide behind. Nothing in his life seemed to have been exciting or rewarding in the long run - thus why he changes identities so often. The ending being set in winter reflects the ending of the book appropriately. Winter makes me feel depressed, if the book were to end in spring or summer I think it would be very contradicting.
I liked the book as a whole because it wasnt as clean cut as other detective novels are in which you know the detective, the suspects, and who they are as people. In the Big Sleep, although we didnt know Marlowe's past, we still knew exactly what his personality was like and that never faultered throughout the book. I think City of Glass was more realistic when it came to characters. We all alter who we are in different scenarios - we are different around our friends, our teachers, and our parents. People are complex creatures. I think Auster set out to show this in City of Glass.
I liked the book as a whole because it wasnt as clean cut as other detective novels are in which you know the detective, the suspects, and who they are as people. In the Big Sleep, although we didnt know Marlowe's past, we still knew exactly what his personality was like and that never faultered throughout the book. I think City of Glass was more realistic when it came to characters. We all alter who we are in different scenarios - we are different around our friends, our teachers, and our parents. People are complex creatures. I think Auster set out to show this in City of Glass.
7/1/09
This ending was very unsatisfying to me, we are left with no true answers, as either the answers that we got from Auster were questioned by Quinn or we never had them at all. and as for the narrator, we are completely clueless as who it is. We are left to wonder where Quinn is, and where the food was coming from. I continue to feel bad for Quinn in the end, his past year has really amounted to nothing, as everything that he had consumed his life with had been a failure. He had truly disappeared in the world except to Auster, who could not reach him.
It is interesting to see the time change, even though we do not know days we know the time of year based on the weather. The fact that it ends with a winter scene we are left with a calming feeling even if the ending contradicts the weather. The white blanket makes it seem as if everything is and will be okay, and it is almost like a new beginning. Which could be, considering how Quinn is known to stop his life and start a new. For all we know he has completely started a new identity, and is once again writing perhaps a new genre. This novel has become more of a mystery, rather than a detective novel, but it really only seems fitting for Quinn to be the main character of a mystery novel because that was the genre that he loved so much.
It is interesting to see the time change, even though we do not know days we know the time of year based on the weather. The fact that it ends with a winter scene we are left with a calming feeling even if the ending contradicts the weather. The white blanket makes it seem as if everything is and will be okay, and it is almost like a new beginning. Which could be, considering how Quinn is known to stop his life and start a new. For all we know he has completely started a new identity, and is once again writing perhaps a new genre. This novel has become more of a mystery, rather than a detective novel, but it really only seems fitting for Quinn to be the main character of a mystery novel because that was the genre that he loved so much.
Empty
I find it interesting that I just read a 201 page novel and come away from it feeling somehow empty. Auster neither lifts me up nor shoots me down, he doesn’t even give me that “ah Ha” moment that we all so much desire in virtually every story. With this said I would argue that Auster had some intention of making the reader feel this way, making us go on this journey to no where for us learn something about our selves. Maybe to hopefully bring some awareness to our own personal identity in hopes to avoid going nuts like the characters in City of Glass .
Well maybe this is a bit of a stretch, maybe Auster’s plan wasn’t quite that ambiguous, but I do believe that this argument has some merit on some level. After all Quinn struggles with a bit of an identity crisis from the beginning with the whole William Wilson pseudo name; then as the book moves along, Quinn takes on the role of Paul Auster, a detective, which he only writes detective novels, he doesn’t have the slightest clue what a detective’s thinking process is in solving a case. So in order to better commit to the part and hopefully solve the case, Quinn forces himself to completely forgo all personal thought and completely become Auster. Only problem is, he has no idea who this guy is. So he attempts to solve the case while he has no thought process and no sense of purpose or direction. On top of this identity crisis we have Peter Stillman Jr. who has no real clue who he is or why he exists; and then we have Peter Stillman Sr. who apparently has a twin, and is not completely confident who he is.
As we read through all these identity issues, it becomes easy to see how the book then seems confusing or empty or unclear; for it has what I will argue is an identity crisis of its own. What is it? What is it really about? All these questions can be asked and as readers we are given little to no answers. Would it be ridiculous to argue that Paul Auster as the author maybe had or has a bit of an identity crisis as a writer, maybe he has or is unsure of whom he truly is as a writer and that why the work is so unclear to us. Then maybe he likes it this way and believes we should find it interesting and deciphering who he is as a writer and what this work should mean. Maybe it’s a bit of stretch, but none the less, it did pop into my head as I finished the work. What does it all mean?
Well maybe this is a bit of a stretch, maybe Auster’s plan wasn’t quite that ambiguous, but I do believe that this argument has some merit on some level. After all Quinn struggles with a bit of an identity crisis from the beginning with the whole William Wilson pseudo name; then as the book moves along, Quinn takes on the role of Paul Auster, a detective, which he only writes detective novels, he doesn’t have the slightest clue what a detective’s thinking process is in solving a case. So in order to better commit to the part and hopefully solve the case, Quinn forces himself to completely forgo all personal thought and completely become Auster. Only problem is, he has no idea who this guy is. So he attempts to solve the case while he has no thought process and no sense of purpose or direction. On top of this identity crisis we have Peter Stillman Jr. who has no real clue who he is or why he exists; and then we have Peter Stillman Sr. who apparently has a twin, and is not completely confident who he is.
As we read through all these identity issues, it becomes easy to see how the book then seems confusing or empty or unclear; for it has what I will argue is an identity crisis of its own. What is it? What is it really about? All these questions can be asked and as readers we are given little to no answers. Would it be ridiculous to argue that Paul Auster as the author maybe had or has a bit of an identity crisis as a writer, maybe he has or is unsure of whom he truly is as a writer and that why the work is so unclear to us. Then maybe he likes it this way and believes we should find it interesting and deciphering who he is as a writer and what this work should mean. Maybe it’s a bit of stretch, but none the less, it did pop into my head as I finished the work. What does it all mean?
A Quick Note
While I realize most of you are frustrated by the book (and you're entitled to your frustration, no doubt), the aim of this blog is to engage with the work in a way that's analytical and interpretative. I'm far more interested in seeing how you might place the work and its goals in context (say within the detective genre). My interest lies not in the evaluation of its quality but in the evaluation of its place (what does it do? how does it do it? under what terms? what is new about it? what is old? what does it say? how does it say it?)
Indulging Auster's aims for a few moments, what has he done with the workings of the genre, and how? What does his character's plight say about the workings of the detective and his world? What does it say about writing and literature? What does it say about our world? There are, I believe, clear answers to these questions. . . .
Cheers,
-B
Indulging Auster's aims for a few moments, what has he done with the workings of the genre, and how? What does his character's plight say about the workings of the detective and his world? What does it say about writing and literature? What does it say about our world? There are, I believe, clear answers to these questions. . . .
Cheers,
-B
Labels:
B. R. Smith
Empty Conclusion
Confused, and frustrated are about the only words that can describe how I feel after finishing City of Glass. I am left with complete emptiness after finishing this piece. From the beginning I was a little confused where this book was going. I started to understand what was going towards the middle and now having finished; I am completely lost and frustrated for having wasted my time trying to follow this book.
First, we see Quinn who is supposed to be this writer turn into a wanna be detective. He tries to take on the persona of his novels and it ends up making him crazy. He spends moths outside Stillman's home trying to protect him, where in reality he probably should have been protecting himself. He allowed himself to turn into a homeless man who had no purpose or direction in life.
Secondly, what happened to the "case" he was on. We do hear that Stillman committed suicide, yet the reader receives no sense of comfort. What happened to Peter and Virginia? They disappeared and Quinn could not reach them. Quinn was it turn protecting nothing when he was standing watch over an empty home.
Finally, the author uses the word "we" again, however, the author is apparently not Auster. The author and Auster go to check the Stillman residence and it is empty except the red notebook. What happened to Quinn? Quinn has disappeared and not heard of again. The reader is left completely in the dark and completely empty. It does not answer any of the questions you ask throughout the work.
Brett McAdams
First, we see Quinn who is supposed to be this writer turn into a wanna be detective. He tries to take on the persona of his novels and it ends up making him crazy. He spends moths outside Stillman's home trying to protect him, where in reality he probably should have been protecting himself. He allowed himself to turn into a homeless man who had no purpose or direction in life.
Secondly, what happened to the "case" he was on. We do hear that Stillman committed suicide, yet the reader receives no sense of comfort. What happened to Peter and Virginia? They disappeared and Quinn could not reach them. Quinn was it turn protecting nothing when he was standing watch over an empty home.
Finally, the author uses the word "we" again, however, the author is apparently not Auster. The author and Auster go to check the Stillman residence and it is empty except the red notebook. What happened to Quinn? Quinn has disappeared and not heard of again. The reader is left completely in the dark and completely empty. It does not answer any of the questions you ask throughout the work.
Brett McAdams
A book with no story
Saying I’m disappointed with the ending of City of Glass would be an understatement. From the beginning of the novel, we’re warned that you can’t necessarily believe anything to be as it seems. From this point on I became skeptical of everything mentioned/written in the story, believing that nothing was true or that the story was being told deceptively.
This book left me completely unsatisfied; it leaves a million questions unanswered. For one, where did Peter and Virginia Stillman go? For days their phone was busy, making them unreachable, and then they disappear. They had to have left before Quinn/Auster had taken his post for he would have seen them leave the apartment.
Secondly, Stillman’s twin is never addressed again. We had thought that since Quinn as an author thought that every single thing in a detective novel had significance, or at least the potential to be significant, that he would for sure reappear. Instead, we see him for that brief moment in Grand Central, we are confused, and then he is gone. Never addressed again.
Thirdly, Quinn goes insane…? He turns himself into a homeless man as he guards Peter Stillman, sees himself in a mirror and says, “this is how I always imagined myself.” Okay. Then he eventually finds his way into Peter’s apartment (all doors are unlocked, mind you, which would NEVER happen in NYC), and then lays on the floor naked for days, getting fed by an unknown, and then disappears forever.
We now understand where the “we” in the first page comes from. The author, who doesn’t say he is Paul Auster, finds the red notebook that contains Quinn’s detective journey. He doesn’t know Quinn at all, he isn’t making the story up. Quinn is a mystery to him as well. Quinn then disappears, never to be seen again.
This book is awful.
bryce rubin
7/01/09
The ending of City of Glass frustrated me because nothing was really resolved. In fact, it left me with more unanswered questions than I had at the beginning. But perhaps that was Auster’s goal? I feel as though Auster writing such an ambiguous ending would have to be deliberate. Having reached the conclusion of the book I think I can understand Quinn’s feelings after he had been following Stillman for a while and was wondering if it was a waste of time. Quinn chooses to believe that Stillman knew he was being followed and therefore had an elaborately concocted scheme rather than believe that Stillman was aimlessly wondering. Likewise, I choose to believe that Auster had some purpose in mind with such a vague ending. What that purpose is I can’t even begin to imagine but I choose to believe that Auster had purpose behind his writing so that I don’t feel as though I’ve been wasting my time with the aimless writing of a madman.
Perhaps if Quinn had followed the second Stillman the book would have ended very differently. The moment in the book when Quinn has to decide which Stillman to follow reminded me of those cheesy chose your own ending books, where it tells you to turn to page 5 if you want the character to do action x but turn to page 20 if you want the character to do action y. Quinn had to make a choice and his decision was as arbitrary as choosing x or y. After that point in the book I kept expecting the second Stillman to reappear. Perhaps it was the second Stillman who jumped off the bridge, not the ragged Stillman Quinn had been following. Although it seemed as if Stillman (#1) was foreshadowing his demise in his last conversation with Quinn. In that last conversation between Quinn-as-Peter Stillman Jr. and Peter Stillman Sr., Stillman told Quinn/Peter Jr. that now he could die happily. In addition, he mentioned something about lying making you wish you were dead and we know that Stillman lied at least once, in his book’s discussion of Henry Dark. Maybe Peter Stillman Jr. and Virginia disappeared because of the second Stillman. Perhaps the second Stillman was the one they were worried about. There are an endless number of unanswered questions. Something the really interested me was the author’s reference to Auster at the end. He says that he severed ties with his once good friend Auster because he felt that Auster had treated Quinn very poorly. However, I didn’t see anything horrible in Auster’s treatment of Quinn so it makes me wonder if there is more to Auster’s part of the story than we know. After all the author tells us he has written only what was in the red notebook, so how much of the story hasn’t been told to us?
Perhaps if Quinn had followed the second Stillman the book would have ended very differently. The moment in the book when Quinn has to decide which Stillman to follow reminded me of those cheesy chose your own ending books, where it tells you to turn to page 5 if you want the character to do action x but turn to page 20 if you want the character to do action y. Quinn had to make a choice and his decision was as arbitrary as choosing x or y. After that point in the book I kept expecting the second Stillman to reappear. Perhaps it was the second Stillman who jumped off the bridge, not the ragged Stillman Quinn had been following. Although it seemed as if Stillman (#1) was foreshadowing his demise in his last conversation with Quinn. In that last conversation between Quinn-as-Peter Stillman Jr. and Peter Stillman Sr., Stillman told Quinn/Peter Jr. that now he could die happily. In addition, he mentioned something about lying making you wish you were dead and we know that Stillman lied at least once, in his book’s discussion of Henry Dark. Maybe Peter Stillman Jr. and Virginia disappeared because of the second Stillman. Perhaps the second Stillman was the one they were worried about. There are an endless number of unanswered questions. Something the really interested me was the author’s reference to Auster at the end. He says that he severed ties with his once good friend Auster because he felt that Auster had treated Quinn very poorly. However, I didn’t see anything horrible in Auster’s treatment of Quinn so it makes me wonder if there is more to Auster’s part of the story than we know. After all the author tells us he has written only what was in the red notebook, so how much of the story hasn’t been told to us?
not sure what to make of it....
Bri Fowle
I am really very confused by the ending of the book. For whatever reason, Quinn becomes completely obsessed with the Stillmans, except for the fact that he never once approaches them or sees them at all. He hides in an alley next to the house and watches them vigilantly. He basically turns into Stillman, obsessing over the smallest thing and trying to overanalyze every thing that happens or doesn’t happen. After a couple months, he finally gets up and expects everything to be as it used to be. Instead, he is left without any money, no house, no food, no clothes, and no possessions whatsoever. He goes back to the Stillmans house and obsessively writes in his red notebook, naked and laying on the floor. He becomes unaware and uncaring of everything around him, even about the food that mysteriously appeared next to him. The case that he took made him pretend to be someone else and consequently Quinn disappeared from the inside out, until he just disappeared entirely. The end of the book made me feel completely unsatisfied. I feel like I just read a book that left me in the middle of nowhere, with nothing but questions. The case wasn’t even really solved, Virginia and Peter Stillman disappeared, the check bounced, and I have no idea who that person was in the end. I wonder what the person at the end meant when he said that he was no longer friends with Paul Auster. To me that made no sense because the author was Paul Auster and how can he not be friends with himself? It really makes me wonder if the author and the character are the same or separate.
I am really very confused by the ending of the book. For whatever reason, Quinn becomes completely obsessed with the Stillmans, except for the fact that he never once approaches them or sees them at all. He hides in an alley next to the house and watches them vigilantly. He basically turns into Stillman, obsessing over the smallest thing and trying to overanalyze every thing that happens or doesn’t happen. After a couple months, he finally gets up and expects everything to be as it used to be. Instead, he is left without any money, no house, no food, no clothes, and no possessions whatsoever. He goes back to the Stillmans house and obsessively writes in his red notebook, naked and laying on the floor. He becomes unaware and uncaring of everything around him, even about the food that mysteriously appeared next to him. The case that he took made him pretend to be someone else and consequently Quinn disappeared from the inside out, until he just disappeared entirely. The end of the book made me feel completely unsatisfied. I feel like I just read a book that left me in the middle of nowhere, with nothing but questions. The case wasn’t even really solved, Virginia and Peter Stillman disappeared, the check bounced, and I have no idea who that person was in the end. I wonder what the person at the end meant when he said that he was no longer friends with Paul Auster. To me that made no sense because the author was Paul Auster and how can he not be friends with himself? It really makes me wonder if the author and the character are the same or separate.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
City of Glass Post 2
Pranav Shankla
After reading chapters 6-9 what I found most interesting has to be the interaction of communication between Auster and Peter Stillman’s father. For example the first time they communicate with each other was in an indirect way and that being Auster reading Stillman books. The books followed what was expected, highly religious and his thoughts about the world. The significance of this information is unknown so far though later it might lead to unlocking the mystery about Stillman agenda. The second way was again intriguing in the way Auster follows Stillman around trying to find out who he really is without actually confronting him. This part of the book interested me as it shows how the characters can interact so well with each other even without meeting one and other. Finally, the last type of interaction they had was when they actually meet for the first time. This by far was the best part of the book. The interaction between the two was short, precise, and very witty. They seem to be very skeptical of each other so that they can find out who they both really are in this so-called realistic world. To sum up the point I am trying to get at is that I like how the author interaction between the characters build up the suspense of the book, but also leaves you guessing into what each characters role is in the book.
After reading chapters 6-9 what I found most interesting has to be the interaction of communication between Auster and Peter Stillman’s father. For example the first time they communicate with each other was in an indirect way and that being Auster reading Stillman books. The books followed what was expected, highly religious and his thoughts about the world. The significance of this information is unknown so far though later it might lead to unlocking the mystery about Stillman agenda. The second way was again intriguing in the way Auster follows Stillman around trying to find out who he really is without actually confronting him. This part of the book interested me as it shows how the characters can interact so well with each other even without meeting one and other. Finally, the last type of interaction they had was when they actually meet for the first time. This by far was the best part of the book. The interaction between the two was short, precise, and very witty. They seem to be very skeptical of each other so that they can find out who they both really are in this so-called realistic world. To sum up the point I am trying to get at is that I like how the author interaction between the characters build up the suspense of the book, but also leaves you guessing into what each characters role is in the book.
City of Glass Language
Auster begins to take this novel in an interesting direction through the middle chapters. Auster takes us through this history of language/ colonization lesson as interpreted by Peter Stillman’s father. What, I guess; interested me during chapter 6-9 was the potential development of the importance of language. Obviously, we already know Peter Stillman has an interesting dialect and way of communicating; therefore Auster has already lead on to the fact that communication and language are at least different, if not crucial in understanding this yet to be solved case/ novel. Now after reading this last section, I am very curious to know where Auster is going with lesson on the development of “Gods Language,” language in general, and early colonization.
Obviously there was some significance to reading Stillman’s book and outlining this myriad of information. The question now becomes, what is this information we have now gained used for moving forward? Is it that language will be significant in allowing Quinn/ us the readers to directly solve the problem at hand, or will it help to understand certain characters better, thus allowing us to better understand where we stand in solving the problem?
In comparison with the other works we have studied, City of Glass is quite different thus far, at least in the way the situation has been set up in the first 9 chapters. I mean we still have our protagonist/ detective, the potentially devious women, the problem that needs to be solved etc… The difference lies in how we have reached this point. The fact that the Stillman’s think or say they believe Quinn is Paul Auster, which he is not and he is not a real detective which they believe he is. Also, the meeting with Mr. Stillman was obviously quite bizarre and so too was the interaction between Mrs. Stillman and Quinn so early in the book. Then we now have this interesting introduction of the significance and history of language. Different, but interesting; now I obviously can’t wait to see were Auster is headed.
Obviously there was some significance to reading Stillman’s book and outlining this myriad of information. The question now becomes, what is this information we have now gained used for moving forward? Is it that language will be significant in allowing Quinn/ us the readers to directly solve the problem at hand, or will it help to understand certain characters better, thus allowing us to better understand where we stand in solving the problem?
In comparison with the other works we have studied, City of Glass is quite different thus far, at least in the way the situation has been set up in the first 9 chapters. I mean we still have our protagonist/ detective, the potentially devious women, the problem that needs to be solved etc… The difference lies in how we have reached this point. The fact that the Stillman’s think or say they believe Quinn is Paul Auster, which he is not and he is not a real detective which they believe he is. Also, the meeting with Mr. Stillman was obviously quite bizarre and so too was the interaction between Mrs. Stillman and Quinn so early in the book. Then we now have this interesting introduction of the significance and history of language. Different, but interesting; now I obviously can’t wait to see were Auster is headed.
Auster's Theology
Auster’s engagement in theological speculation is predominant in this section of City of Glass. In particular he addresses the idea of the Tower of Babel through the medium of Stillman’s book. As Quinn (or Auster or whomever he has decided to be that day) examines Stillman’s work, the extent of Stillman’s theological intrigues are revealed to the reader. Of particular import is the work of Milton’s contemporary, Henry Dark. Dark believe that the New World was some kind of saintly conduit through which the righteous will pass, its roots extending back only to the arrival of the Mayflower on Plymouth Rock. He drew a parallel from the landing of the Mayflower to Noah and the Flood, and it was only a hop and a skip from there to predict that, as the Tower of Babel was erected 340 years after the Flood, so too would there be a new tower erected in America 340 years after the landing of the Mayflower.
The continuous reference to Babel and the idea of an all-encompassing language of absolute truth are themes that not only run through City of Glass, but define its theological and philosophical undertones. In addressing this idea of a common language of innocence, I reject it whole-heartedly. The idea is rooted in pure philosophy, theology and, most importantly, speculation. However, as insane as Dark sounds, he does put forth one idea that I agree with. Common Messianism dictates that there will come a day when a prophet will deliver us to a new Garden of Eden and usher in an age of peace. But Dark says that that notion is a load. On the contrary, surely all we have is world we live in and everything that is contained within it. If there is to be some kind of age of peace, it will be brought about by the work of man in the places we already live, and not the supernatural.
-Jason
The continuous reference to Babel and the idea of an all-encompassing language of absolute truth are themes that not only run through City of Glass, but define its theological and philosophical undertones. In addressing this idea of a common language of innocence, I reject it whole-heartedly. The idea is rooted in pure philosophy, theology and, most importantly, speculation. However, as insane as Dark sounds, he does put forth one idea that I agree with. Common Messianism dictates that there will come a day when a prophet will deliver us to a new Garden of Eden and usher in an age of peace. But Dark says that that notion is a load. On the contrary, surely all we have is world we live in and everything that is contained within it. If there is to be some kind of age of peace, it will be brought about by the work of man in the places we already live, and not the supernatural.
-Jason
6/30
Language has become very prevalent in this novel now. It seems that Quinn is more interested in Stillmans writing than the actual case in some aspects. Although it really makes perfect sense considering how Quinn is in fact a writer himself. My issue with it is that I am having a hard time trying to decide how this long drawn out discovery is important to the rest of the story. I understand that it has importance to see where Stillman was coming from (to an extent) to lock his son up for nine years, but it seems very drug out, as if there is a strong importance. Except, of course, for the fact that 1960 was the year that Stillman locked up his son, and it was the same year as the new Babel.
Also I find it interesting that Quinn discusses how when he is pretending to be Paul Auster it makes him so much freer, and he does not have to worry about his normal stressors. This is silly to me because Quinn has already made up other characters; I’m not sure why it takes this one to actually pull him out of his funk. My only true guess is maybe because Auster is in fact a real person to his knowledge, and he already had a reputation that he needs to uphold. Which is a similarity to Chinatown, in the fact that there is identity fraud, which is a new issue that had not been in The Big Sleep nor Brick.
Also I find it interesting that Quinn discusses how when he is pretending to be Paul Auster it makes him so much freer, and he does not have to worry about his normal stressors. This is silly to me because Quinn has already made up other characters; I’m not sure why it takes this one to actually pull him out of his funk. My only true guess is maybe because Auster is in fact a real person to his knowledge, and he already had a reputation that he needs to uphold. Which is a similarity to Chinatown, in the fact that there is identity fraud, which is a new issue that had not been in The Big Sleep nor Brick.
6/30/09
To me one of the most striking differences between The Big Sleep and Chinatown was the presence of good. In The Big Sleep basically all of the characters were one degree of criminal or another. Most of the characters were a mix of good and bad, with no set of characters being held up as right or better. However, in Chinatown there was a definite undertone of good versus evil. Gittes, Evelyn, Hollis and even Katherine are defiantly portrayed as being “good” people and Noah Cross and his underlings are portrayed as “bad” or “evil” people. The stark contrast between Hollis and Noah was very interesting to me. The two of them were partners, they were equally wealthy, powerful and respected, but they are very opposite characters. Hollis is the epitome of goodness; he struggles to do right by the people of L.A., he takes care of Evelyn and her daughter, his every action seems to be for someone else’s good. Noah Cross, on the other hand, is a despicable man; he is ruthless, greedy, arrogant, a murderer and a horrible father. Nowhere in The Big Sleep are two such polar opposite characters found. No single character in The Big Sleep is as admirable as Hollis or as disgusting as Noah. For me that is why the ending of Chinatown seems so hopeless. Noah has gotten everything he wants and he destroyed Hollis and Evelyn in the process. It seems like a triumph of evil over good. Whereas neither good nor evil wins out in The Big Sleep because neither is found in any concentrated form. The ending of The Big Sleep is actually kind of hopeful in my view. It is revealed that none of the characters are as degenerate as they might originally seem to be.
-Samantha Pepper
-Samantha Pepper
The Patient Life of the Detective
The life of the detective is always glorified in mystery novels. They’re always walking in on murders, over hearing shady phone calls, and discovering some shocking plot twist 50 pages into the novel. However, I must imagine there is a lot of waiting involved in the life of a detective. We see some of that when Quinn is following Mr. Stillman through the streets of NY. After 14 days he’s bored and wants to give up; we never hear detectives say this in other mystery novels. Maybe it’s because Quinn is an accidental detective and not one by profession.
It is mentioned that Quinn spends his days wandering the streets of NY. He walks down avenues only watching, never speaking, observing without judgement; it allows him to lose himself. How ironic is it that he winds up following Mr. Stillman doing the same exact thing? Quinn, or shall I call him, Auster, is hired to follow Stillman to make sure he doesn’t kill his son, Peter. Quinn finds him (and his twin, mysteriously) in Grand Central, and follows him daily, through his mundane routine. It’s almost as if Quinn is having an out-of-body experience and is watching himself. He records everything about Stillman in his red notebook, but after 13 days he tells Vivian he is bored and wants to give up. Of course he doesn’t retire, but I find it very comical that Quinn is subjected to consciously following Stillman daily, through his boring walk, when he, himself, has the same ritual for when he is Quinn (William Wilson?) and not Paul Auster.
Bryce Rubin
City of Glass Post II
Language continues to be a constant throughout this novel. During the first few chapters we saw Peter Stillman locked in a room and a hospital for many years. His father hoping that he would learn the language of God, or a unified language. We are now starting to see the affects of this bizarre situation. During Chapter six in particular we see Quinn and Peter talking and Peter is reading chapters and verses from the book of Genisis in the bible. Peter believes that the story of the “Garden of Eden”, and “The Tower of Babel” are both stories of how the unified language of God was disrupted.
Peter talks abut the story of the “Garden of Eden” and how when eve took a bite from the apple it severed all language from God. It is described that Language before that, was interchangeable with the things the names represented. Unity was the best word to describe things before the apple was eaten. With the bite from the apple came “good”, and “evil” with this separation came the separation of language. The same was the case with the “Tower of Babel”. The tower represented unity amongst the people and unity amongst the people with God. With this came the same outcome when the tower fell. The disruption of God’s language came about again.
Auster’s clearly displaying his thoughts about language and what he believes happened to language over time. With all the talk of language and symbols I think we can see that Auster felt very strongly about structuralism.
After reading these chapters Auster’s use of language is clearly to show us that language is supposed to be unified. We are not supposed to have multiple meanings to our language. The use of these bible stories are in my opinion Auster’s attempt at showing us that language was once what it was supposed to be and it is not now.
City of Glass
Bri Fowle
When Quinn/Auster traced the routes of Stillman and it came out to be letters spelling out “owerofbab,” or “The Tower of Babel,” I thought it was very odd and kind of unlikely. How did Quinn/Auster think to trace the routes out? How can someone be that tirelessly thorough about a person? I was wondering how Stillman could not have noticed someone following him for weeks, until Quinn/Auster finally approached Stillman three different times, and he didn’t seem to recognize him at all any of the times. I thought it was interesting how we got so much information from those encounters about Stillman. I had suspected that Dark was made up or something by the way that no one had ever heard of him, and how all of these weird things happened to him. Only one of his children lived past infancy, and he ended up dying in a fall, and then his house and all but one of his pamphlets went up in flames and Stillman found the only copy left in existence. All of that put together sounded very unlikely. The fact that he presented his story that way makes me think that he was pretty much insane when he wrote it and it really only made sense to him. The notion that he is insane is very much influenced by the fact that he locked up his son in a completely dark room for 9 years, hoping that he would learn “God’s language.”
When Quinn/Auster traced the routes of Stillman and it came out to be letters spelling out “owerofbab,” or “The Tower of Babel,” I thought it was very odd and kind of unlikely. How did Quinn/Auster think to trace the routes out? How can someone be that tirelessly thorough about a person? I was wondering how Stillman could not have noticed someone following him for weeks, until Quinn/Auster finally approached Stillman three different times, and he didn’t seem to recognize him at all any of the times. I thought it was interesting how we got so much information from those encounters about Stillman. I had suspected that Dark was made up or something by the way that no one had ever heard of him, and how all of these weird things happened to him. Only one of his children lived past infancy, and he ended up dying in a fall, and then his house and all but one of his pamphlets went up in flames and Stillman found the only copy left in existence. All of that put together sounded very unlikely. The fact that he presented his story that way makes me think that he was pretty much insane when he wrote it and it really only made sense to him. The notion that he is insane is very much influenced by the fact that he locked up his son in a completely dark room for 9 years, hoping that he would learn “God’s language.”
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Women of Detective Fiction
Here again we have another interesting role played by a women. In the first section of City of Glass Auster introduces Mrs. Stillman whom is the wife of Mr. Stillman, a man who had a troubled childhood thanks to his father which handicapped him both in mental and physical ways. Mr. Stillman’s character is interesting enough but Mrs. Stillman is who stood out to me, especially when I compare this work to the detective/ noir works that we looked at thus far.
Mrs. Stillman comes across write out of that gate as a strong, independent, respected woman, who is the rock that holds Mr. Stillman together. She seems to be in charge and the mastermind of the plan to protect or to do what we think is protecting Mr. Stillman from his father, the root of all his problems in the first place. I find my self wondering, as I read, what the significance of this woman playing such a dominant role is. She, like many of the other women we have met in our studies thus far, is mysterious, mischievous, they make you want so bad to trust them but for some reason I just don’t.
Also, I am curious to know what significance, if any, the kiss that Mrs. Stillman gives Quinn as he is leaving their house. I wonder if this theme will play out more as I continue to read tonight or if she uses this against Quinn to manipulate him in a certain way; I’m not sure were Auster is going with this, I just find it interesting that in every story we have covered has had some situation were a women, most often not known by detective/ protagonist previous to the investigation, and thus far each any every one has had something to do with the cause of the entire situation that is being investigated. Interesting isn’t it? Or maybe it’s not so interesting, maybe a lack of originality? Or maybe, just maybe it is the sing of a great piece of art within the noir/ detective genre. I will choose to with hold my final judgment until I have had more experience with the genre, time/ one more novel, will tell me more.
Mrs. Stillman comes across write out of that gate as a strong, independent, respected woman, who is the rock that holds Mr. Stillman together. She seems to be in charge and the mastermind of the plan to protect or to do what we think is protecting Mr. Stillman from his father, the root of all his problems in the first place. I find my self wondering, as I read, what the significance of this woman playing such a dominant role is. She, like many of the other women we have met in our studies thus far, is mysterious, mischievous, they make you want so bad to trust them but for some reason I just don’t.
Also, I am curious to know what significance, if any, the kiss that Mrs. Stillman gives Quinn as he is leaving their house. I wonder if this theme will play out more as I continue to read tonight or if she uses this against Quinn to manipulate him in a certain way; I’m not sure were Auster is going with this, I just find it interesting that in every story we have covered has had some situation were a women, most often not known by detective/ protagonist previous to the investigation, and thus far each any every one has had something to do with the cause of the entire situation that is being investigated. Interesting isn’t it? Or maybe it’s not so interesting, maybe a lack of originality? Or maybe, just maybe it is the sing of a great piece of art within the noir/ detective genre. I will choose to with hold my final judgment until I have had more experience with the genre, time/ one more novel, will tell me more.
City of Glass Post 1
City of Glass is a complete contrast to the Big Sleep in so many different ways. For instance, the characters are so different compared to the Big Sleep. Auster introduction of the Main character Quinn is that he has an alter ego and uses several chapters to explain his identity and the possible reasons behind this alter ego. However, Marlow from the Big Sleep was more of a mystery and all you really knew about his personal life was his obsession with his work. Even though there are differences between how both authors portray their characters what makes this book interesting to me is the inclusion of the author himself in the book through the character Peter Stillman.
This notion is an intriguing one, as I have not read many books where the author is seen through two visions himself as the author and a character he makes up in his book. Not only this but how in an indirect way he has more than one author explaining the book , it intrigues me to see how the book might unfolded. Therefore, the reason why I like this book a lot more than the Big Sleep was that it is a typical murder mystery novel where the outcome can be easily predicated. However, the City of Glass is not, it does not really have a detective; there is also no main theme behind the book, so this in a way adds to the mystery and suspense of what might happen later in the book.
Pranav Shankla
This notion is an intriguing one, as I have not read many books where the author is seen through two visions himself as the author and a character he makes up in his book. Not only this but how in an indirect way he has more than one author explaining the book , it intrigues me to see how the book might unfolded. Therefore, the reason why I like this book a lot more than the Big Sleep was that it is a typical murder mystery novel where the outcome can be easily predicated. However, the City of Glass is not, it does not really have a detective; there is also no main theme behind the book, so this in a way adds to the mystery and suspense of what might happen later in the book.
Pranav Shankla
City of Glass
It seems all the books and movies we read and watch all have the same framework for the plot. "Chinatown" and The Big Sleep are similar in that they are both mysteries set in the past in L.A. Both cases start out small, infidelity and blackmail, and unfold into murder mysteries. Both involve a some what disturbed woman behind everything. This is also true of Brick, except that it is set in modern day times with high school kids. The main characters in all three of these works are similar too: 3 detectives who are confident and smooth talking to get what they need. They will do what it takes to solve the case.
In The City of Glass however, there are differences between these stories. City of Glass is told in third person rather than first like in The Big Sleep. The main character is different than any we have seen before. Quinn is a writer, not a detective. He has alter egos and is not as confident as the others. These are all the differences I have noted thus far in my reading of the City of Glass.
In The City of Glass however, there are differences between these stories. City of Glass is told in third person rather than first like in The Big Sleep. The main character is different than any we have seen before. Quinn is a writer, not a detective. He has alter egos and is not as confident as the others. These are all the differences I have noted thus far in my reading of the City of Glass.
6/29/09
In beginning to read, City of Glass, I have found the book to be quite intriguing, yet odd. Auster’s writing style is very vulgar and straightforward, especially at points you would least expect. I found myself having to stop at times and actually consider if I had just read some of the words that were written on the page. I don’t know if he has a dry sense of humor or that he showing a complete parallel to his personality. The most disheartening part about this book, that has captured my attention, is the quite prolific mentioning of child torture and isolation. But most importantly, the growth of “natural language,” that was briefly mentioned. I have an interest in child psychology and growth and I have found this topic to be quite fascinating and informing. I found that City of Glass, unlike The Big Sleep, pulls on the heartstrings of its readers. There is a more emotional connection found by the main character, Quinn, which is not seen by Marlowe. Maybe, it is because of his great loss he endured in loosing his wife and child. You can see that it is quite apparent that the loss of his child has taken such a drastic deterioration of his well-being and sanity. At the very end of the reading you feel closer and sympathetic to the main character when he informs you of his own child’s name, its relations to the man he is trying to save, and his perspective of the situation through the end of his son’s life.
-Erin L.
-Erin L.
6/29/09
The thing that strikes me the most different between City of Glass and The Big Sleep is the difference of narration. Changing from first person to third is really something else. The beginning of this novel really had me thinking, an author, writing about an author, discussing how an author really writes about their own thoughts, while making the main character pretend to be author is pretty mind blowing. Not to mention the three (or four including Paul Auster [which is really two for the author and the character]) personalities the main character has. I think that Auster also displays his beliefs through Peter Stillman, and I think he will continue to do so. As from what I can tell so far, Stillman and Quinn are pretty similar, even if Stillman is a crazy experiment. Quinn seems to be just as crazy, only has better social skills. Which may be really only his acting skills, because at this point of the book, we’ve only seen him interact with someone pretending to be someone else, someone who is supposed to be sane, and respectable.
So far there has been a lot less plot in the City of Glass, and a lot more discussion, although there have been a lot of the same issues; sex, drugs, money, murder… Although the plot seems relatively different in the fact that the father is the issue, as opposed to in The Big Sleep where they are trying to protect the father.
-Monica
So far there has been a lot less plot in the City of Glass, and a lot more discussion, although there have been a lot of the same issues; sex, drugs, money, murder… Although the plot seems relatively different in the fact that the father is the issue, as opposed to in The Big Sleep where they are trying to protect the father.
-Monica
Post 6/29
Chinatown has started off in a pattern that has become indicitive of the other detective stories we have examined. Furthermore, the character, Phillip Marlowe, from The Big Sleep seems to precede the design of Jack Nicholson's character. But the division between the two is slight. Nicholson plays a hardened private-eye who seems to share both Marlowe's recklessness and his lack of concern for making a positive impression on people. They also share a similar history of police work, and one gets the feeling that [Nicholson] too had a falling out with his former employers' methods. For both of these cahracters, tender moments are slighted in favor of obtaining pertinent information. They approach their work with a cold professionalism and logic that is indicitive of all the detectives we have studied thus far.
City of Glass, however, seems to have a different feel. I must admit that I am thrown right off the bat. Auster seems to be fond of vulgarities that make the reader feel slightly awkward. To me, if one is going to be vulgar in writing it should be to illustrate a particularly colorful point, not merely to embelish the story. I really don't need to hear about this guy's turds. I am also curious as to where Auster is going with the introduction of his own name into the story. I had to reread that passage and flip back to the cover several times before I was convinced that my brain wasn't playing tricks on me. So far, this book rubs me the wrong way.
-Jason
City of Glass, however, seems to have a different feel. I must admit that I am thrown right off the bat. Auster seems to be fond of vulgarities that make the reader feel slightly awkward. To me, if one is going to be vulgar in writing it should be to illustrate a particularly colorful point, not merely to embelish the story. I really don't need to hear about this guy's turds. I am also curious as to where Auster is going with the introduction of his own name into the story. I had to reread that passage and flip back to the cover several times before I was convinced that my brain wasn't playing tricks on me. So far, this book rubs me the wrong way.
-Jason
City of Glass
Bri Fowle
City of Glass, so far, is very odd. What struck me as the most interesting so far is that Quinn and the author seem to possibly be similar. Quinn lost his family, so he became somewhat of a robot. He just went through the actions of living and lost his sense of purpose in life. He didn’t feel anything anymore. He wrote mystery novels under a pseudonym, and only then did he feel some sense of being alive. He related more to his pseudonym and his main character in his book than he did to himself. When he got the call for Paul Auster, he became yet another person besides himself. I think that because of what happened to his family, whatever it was, he could only relate to the outside world through other characters. The reason I say that the author and Quinn could be similar is the fact that Auster uses his own name in the book. Maybe he is living vicariously through the main character of his book, similar to Quinn. I wonder if Auster is loosely based on Quinn at all, has had some of the same life experiences, or has been in the same situations that Quinn has. It kind of makes sense, in a weird sort of way. Another thing that I thought was interesting is the fact that Quinn only writes mystery novels, and to him, he doesn’t even do that, William Wilson does. So why when Peter calls for Auster does Quinn say that he is Auster and he will take the case?
City of Glass, so far, is very odd. What struck me as the most interesting so far is that Quinn and the author seem to possibly be similar. Quinn lost his family, so he became somewhat of a robot. He just went through the actions of living and lost his sense of purpose in life. He didn’t feel anything anymore. He wrote mystery novels under a pseudonym, and only then did he feel some sense of being alive. He related more to his pseudonym and his main character in his book than he did to himself. When he got the call for Paul Auster, he became yet another person besides himself. I think that because of what happened to his family, whatever it was, he could only relate to the outside world through other characters. The reason I say that the author and Quinn could be similar is the fact that Auster uses his own name in the book. Maybe he is living vicariously through the main character of his book, similar to Quinn. I wonder if Auster is loosely based on Quinn at all, has had some of the same life experiences, or has been in the same situations that Quinn has. It kind of makes sense, in a weird sort of way. Another thing that I thought was interesting is the fact that Quinn only writes mystery novels, and to him, he doesn’t even do that, William Wilson does. So why when Peter calls for Auster does Quinn say that he is Auster and he will take the case?
First City of Glass Post
So far City of Glass has a very different tone than The Big Sleep. In some ways City of Glass is very realistic, for example the scene where the mysterious caller calls Quinn for the second time and Quinn is in the rest room. Despite a certain level of realism the book, at least in the first five chapters, doesn’t read as if it were meant to be in the realistic style. Nor does it fall under modernism, although it occasionally seems almost stream-of-consciousness. I can’t quite pinpoint what makes the tone of City of Glass so vastly different from the tone of The Big Sleep; I don’t think I’ve read enough of the book yet. However, the differences between Quinn and Marlowe might begin to account for some of the difference in the feel of the books. Marlowe is very self assured, fully trained and competent as a detective and has little or no background. Quinn, on the other hand, is a mystery writer not a detective, he is timid and introverted, has a rich background history and might have multiple personalities. Quinn has two alter egos, Wilson, his pen name, and Work, the main character in his mystery novels, and he seems to be adding a third, Paul Auster. I am very interested to see how Paul Auster will fit into the plot of the book. It is very intriguing that the author of City of Glass chose to include himself in the story.
-Samantha Pepper
-Samantha Pepper
Detectives
Already the book City of Glass is vastly different from The Big Sleep. One of the major differences I have noticed deals with the depth in which each author goes into character descriptions. In City of Glass, Auster goes into depth describing his main characters, as opposed to Chandler who gives brief snippets of information, often times making it harder to remember who was who. Auster, within the first chapter, tells us about Quinn, the main character and accidental detective’s, life. We learn that his family is dead and that he is a writer who publishes under a pseudonym, William Wilson. Quinn has deep emotional issues. Quinn wishes to escape his life, which is what allows himself to forget about himself and essentially “become” William Wilson. Quinn is so consumed with his fiction that he takes on the qualities of his detective character, Max Work, and lives as though he would. This is what leads him to take on the case as he does that night he receives the fateful call from Peter Stillman. Chandler does not bring us into the personal life of Marlowe. We don’t know if he has a family, we don’t know about his personality or anything about him outside of the Sternwood case. He is a mystery in himself, and that helps to detach him from the crime he is trying to uncover. Marlowe is also a detective by profession, whereas Quinn stumbled upon the gig by way of a phone call to the wrong number.
I am interested to read on and I attribute that to Auster’s writing style. Judging from only the first 5 chapters, I can already tell that I will enjoy this book more than The Big Sleep. Auster’s characters are much more interesting and I attribute that the detail in his character descriptions. I understand that Chandler didn’t want us to be emotionally tied to Marlowe for that would ruin his hero-like qualities, however, I believe getting to know a character on a more personal level invests the reading into wanting them to succeed, and thus following more carefully their journey.
Bryce Rubin
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)