21st Century Literature discussion

This is the place for comment and discussion about Part III of Invisible. Please don't post spoilers from Part IV.

How did/do you feel about the plan Walker hatches after meeting Born again? How does this make you view his character?

What is Margot's part in the story? Is she truthful with Walker? How do you feel about the way she acts towards him, and what she says about Born?

I am appalled by the plan Walker hatches when he meets Born again. It sounds incredibly stupid. Also, putting it into practice requires him to be devious, which (a) he is not good at, and (b) is beneath him.

I think Walker's "plan" was too transparently ridiculous (even to Walker himself) to be an actual plan. I think Walker was looking for a way to stay involved with Born, and his plan was a way of allowing himself to do so while at the same time getting a petty sort of revenge for the way Born showed him up as a coward.

OK, so the first part of "1967" is written in the first person, the second part in the second person, and now the third part.... It's not like Adam planned it that way. He was struggling with the second part until he received that advice on changing perspective, and the third part is not even written by him. Still, seems like more than a coincidence.

I am sure it is more than a coincidence. Particularly when you look at how Adam and his sister celebrated Andy's birthday every year. First they would reflect on the past,and what they remembered. Then they would talk about what he would be like if he were alive in the present. Then they would imagine a future. I think Adam liked compartmentalizing things this way.

What about Born's side of things? Why does he want to reassociate himself with Adam after all that happened?

Born needs an audience, someone to appreciate his brilliance. He likes having Adam around to admire him.

Absolutely.

Terry wrote: "What is Margot's part in the story? Is she truthful with Walker? How do you feel about the way she acts towards him, and what she says about Born?"

I didn't trust her an inch and was surprised Adam did. Still, as he is a man seemingly 'driven' by his loins I guess he was acting in character.

I'm not buying this. I think Adam is embellishing to the point of fantasy. Every woman he bumps into falls in love with him. He hatches this heroic plan (which I agree was stupid on it's face) to put the evil Born in his place. Even the ending smacks as self-serving; the hero bravely tries to set things right, but his efforts come to a tragic end.

I think Adam is an egotist whose recounting of his life is far more interesting than the reality of it. Let's review: According to Adam, he was on the verge of launching a magazine, witnessed a murder, had a torrid love affair with his sister, then it's off to Paris where he bumps into his nemesis, is framed for drugs and narrowly escapes being sent to prison. All in a matter of a few months and all before his 21st birthday.

Adam's retelling is different from Adam's real life, which is itself a fiction that Auster is only sharing in bits and pieces, which is itself filtered through another fictional writer who is the one who is actually relaying the story to us.

For me, all these layers make the story especially yummy, at least up to this point.

I did not like the Adam Walker that showed up in Paris. What an utterly stupid plan and why?

Margot? What does she add to this Part? I cannot figure it out. Walker was stupid to reconnect with her and she probably did go to London and tell all to Born. But so what if she did? Walker made the plan reality and triggered Born to act just as Margot had warned Walker he would.

Terry wrote: "What about Born's side of things? Why does he want to reassociate himself with Adam after all that happened?"

Casceil wrote: "Born needs an audience, someone to appreciate his brilliance. He likes having Adam around to admire him."

I was trying to decide if it was that, or if he had some new scheme, or if he just wanted to make Adam feel uncomfortable knowing that they were in the same place. In other words, I was torn between Born's egotism and conniving.

Steve wrote: "I'm not buying this. I think Adam is embellishing to the point of fantasy. Every woman he bumps into falls in love with him. He hatches this heroic plan (which I agree was stupid on it's face) to put the evil Born in his place. Even the ending smacks as self-serving; the hero bravely tries to set things right, but his efforts come to a tragic end. ... Adam's retelling is different from Adam's real life..."

I was thinking about that as I was reading Part III/"Fall" and the phrase "unreliable narrator" kept popping into my head. Some of the comments about Part I called Adam an unreliable narrator, and at that point, I had no reason to really think he was. I mean, to me, at least, Part I wasn't *too* outlandish (other than that thing about a man who just met this kid and then gives him a ton of money to start a magazine). Part III, though... like Steve implied, there are just TOO many crazy things that JUST HAPPEN to happen to Adam. I don't know if this is *really* the truth of what happened to him, or if he's embellishing (and if so, how much?), or if this is outright fiction that he's trying to pass off as fact. hmmm...

On to Part IV!

Tiffany wrote: "I don't know if this is *really* the truth of what happened to him, or if he's embellishing (and if so, how much?), or if this is outright fiction that he's trying to pass off as fact. hmmm..."

It is difficult to know how much to trust anything Adam says, or which of it Adam believes. I suspect Adam and Born both have rich fantasy lives.

Casceil wrote: "...I suspect Adam and Born both have rich fantasy lives...."

Or that Auster creates/writes his characters to confound his readers.

Lily wrote: "Casceil wrote: "...I suspect Adam and Born both have rich fantasy lives...."

Or that Auster creates/writes his characters to confound his readers."

Yes! That one!! :)

Tiffany wrote: "Lily wrote: "Casceil wrote: "...I suspect Adam and Born both have rich fantasy lives...."

Or that Auster creates/writes his characters to confound his readers."

Yes! That one!! :)"

I will add, this is my first experience with Auster's writing, but I definitely felt manipulated! So, I find myself asking different questions about the meanings of the story -- such as, if Auster intended this, then,... but if he intended that, then.... And lots of other perturbations and explorations. Like what combination says most about the assumptions I allow myself to fall into using.