Return of the Reluctant threw it out there:
Will someone explain why Auster's the shit? Will someone tell me why this Peter Stillman nonsense is so important?
That's really asking for it. Discussion is opening up.
All of which was inspired by, contributed to, and followed up on at Rake's Progress.
Then there's the analysis of Auster's work Rake's Progress pointed to. (Which I will read this weekend. Starting now. OK, maybe tomorrow.) (Also referenced was "A Reader's Manifesto," which I read years ago and should revisit. Tomorrow. Or the day after.)
So is Auster about the story after all? He is and he isn't. Sure, he tells stories. But they don't go anywhere. They're instances, flashes of insight, coincidental. In fact, Auster, rather, his narrators are cognizant of the stories within stories having no saisfactory resolution and are driven to pursue them. That is the story. The pursuit. Kind of.
Note to self: read less, think more. Maybe that'll help.