21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
Invisible
2014 Book Discussions
>
Invisible - Part IV (June 2014)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Born's final contributions were very interesting. When he started talking about how his life might be fictionalized, Cecile immediately recognized her father's tragic car accident in the story Born was telling. I am convinced that part was true, and that Born was responsible for the father's accident. But why would he suggest it to Cecile?
Born seems to need a certain kind of audience-someone highly and intelligent and perceptive, like Adam or Cecile-to listen to his stories. His suggestion to Cecile that they write a book together is so reminiscent of his suggestion to Adam that they start a magazine. Maybe in his life as a double agent he has gotten so into playing roles that it has become his favorite way to amuse himself.
Mod
To state what is probably obvious, I don’t think any of the ambiguity is meant to have a definite answer, I think the ambiguity itself is making a point. Without hammering it too much, Auster is always reminding us that the backdrop to all this is the turmoil and confusion of the 60’s and the Vietnam War, a time of ambiguous and contradictory feelings for a lot of people. Walker is doing everything he can to avoid the war, at the same time he has a fascination and a level of complicity with Born, who was an agent in French Indochina and therefore one of those who could be considered responsible for the war.
Walker ends up being disgusted with himself for his cowardice in the face of Born’s murder of the mugger. And, while very possibly over interpreting, I think this may reflect some of the ambiguity Walker (and possibly Auster, if I can cross the line of reading the Author into a book) felt in avoiding the draft. At some level, I suspect he felt himself a coward, even if there was principle involved.
I think Walker could have written the second part of the book out of self-disgust; i.e. I’m a worm, so I will write about something that makes it even more obvious that I’m a worm. I previously threw out that the use of second person in this section could have been a way for Walker to distance himself from the act of incest, or to make others complicit in the act - if you go with the ‘it really happened’ interpretation. If you decide on the other interpretation, it could have been a way for him to signal that the whole thing was fiction. By avoiding the definite article he lessens the implication that this is a straight-forward confession.
Mod
I think this is spot-on! I love the observation that the story is essentially book-ended by Born's offers to Walker at the beginning, and to Cecile in the end.
Born thrives on being admired and feared. By the end, he's essentially an impotent old man hiding out in his cave. Asserting that he killed Cecile's father is a final way for him to show his power, whether or not it really happened that way.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Whitney, some great observations, especially about the deliberateness of Born's revelation.On ambiguity, I'd go further and suggest the book is almost about ambiguity. It asks me the question, what do we ever really know? What can we believe?
Casceil wrote: "Born really is a despicable character, isn't he?"Our opening lines found him in Dante's Inferno.
I can only assume the name "Adam" has overlays of "every man" -- which in turn has literary gambits throughout the story, like Margot and Faust and .... Auster must have had fun writing this thing.
Mod
Terry wrote: "On ambiguity, I'd go further and suggest the book is almost about ambiguity. It asks me the question, what do we ever really know? What can we believe? "I think that's it in a nutshell.
But I found this last section, deeply unsatisfactory on all sorts of levels, not least the use of diary entries, which were so packed with remembered details they sound more like a fiction than a truthful rendition. But that's the point isn't it?
Gwynn's denials are questionable, but I think the point is that we don't know whom to believe. We never get much of a perspective about Gwynn beyond what Walker tells us, so it's hard to get a handle on her. Her suggestion that Walker's story be turned into a novel is a nice topping to a story that already has plenty of layers. I, too, found the writing in Cecile's account to be very un-diary like. I can't help but wonder, though, if Born's revelation is the one thing we should recognize as unambiguously true. The setting shifts radically from the glitz of Paris and New York to the Spartan existence on the mountain. Perhaps it symbolizes that all of the frills have been stripped away and we are left with the truth. The fact that it's a diary entry and not memoir seems to reinforce this idea. The privacy of a diary allows the writer to recount without the need for shading the truth.
Steve wrote: " The privacy of a diary allows the writer to recount without the need for shading the truth...."But offers no certainty such has occurred?
Lily wrote: "But offers no certainty such has occurred?"Yes. Throughout this book we only have other people's testimonies - their 'stories'.
Casceil wrote: "Now that you mention it, the name "Adam" does carry connotations of innocence and naivete. The first man in the garden who was led into sin."Yes, and, perhaps, beyond that, the story of "every man" -- the struggle for identity, against evil, for love, for meaning, for usefulness, to desire for metamorphosis into mythic eternal tale, to likely "invisibility" .... A 21st century existential fable.
A symbol of "invisible" that this book brought to mind:
(view spoiler)
As many of you have said, the book is about numerous layers that cover the truth or a truth. The final section has underwhelmed me, but the glimpses of what could have happened are still there. It at least gives rare answers to some of the questions we have been asking. Born is obviously a man with connections, a mole, a double agent, and that explains some of the characteristics about him that were given by Adam Walker. If you remember, Adam was surprised that Rudolph's opinions varied from the extreme right to the anarchistic left (Part I), and he was deeply confused and discombobulated by those opinions. At least, these dual loyalties could explain why Adam had problems 'placing' M. Born.
As for the narrative form, when Auster had exhausted the traditional types of narrators, as a true post-modernist, he decided to rely on narrators who were not actively involved into the story. The final pages are definitely more existential than any other parts in the novel, and they do ask a question - why? Invisible is not an answer book; it is a question book.
Zulfiya wrote: "Invisible is not an answer book; it is a question book."And so many of them!
Ah yes, Zulfiya, a question book it is. Who knows what is true and what is fantasy - not me. I liked Part IV. For me it confirmed that Born was indeed, as Whitney describes him, a sadist. He was an all around unlikeable guy.
As to Gwyn and her denial, I am completely ambivalent. And, ultimately, I'm not sure it matters or if she (or Adam) can be sure it did or did not happen. Perhaps each believes their own version -- memory is like that.
I think Terry is right that this book is about ambiguity and I think the author does a very nice treatment of the subject.
Whitney wrote: "...Asserting that he killed Cecile's father is a final way for him to show his power, whether or not it really happened that way."I agree, but not nearly so well stated. I was just going to say that he was manipulating yet another person, but saying that he's "showing his power" is spot-on. As Casceil said, Born's despicable.
Terry wrote: "On ambiguity, I'd go further and suggest the book is almost about ambiguity. It asks me the question, what do we ever really know? What can we believe?"Perfect. Yes, we've spent this entire book asking each other "Did that really happen? Can/Do you believe him? What about this part? Do we believe her?" Part I: do we believe that Born offered Adam tons of money to start whatever kind of project he wanted? Part II: Do we believe Adam and Gwyn had some crazy affair? Part III: Do we believe that Adam had--and carried out--this grand plan to get back at Born? Part IV: Do we believe Gwyn's denial of Part II? etc. And it feels like with every section we read, we had to start doubting something else we'd already read. We never *know* what happened in 1967, and after a while, you (or maybe it's just me) begin to think "Wait. What *can* I believe? Is there *anything* in here I can believe? Did *any* of this really happen?"
Like Zulfiya said, this isn't a book of answers. We just keep on questioning the storyline and characters.
Tiffany wrote: "We just keep on questioning the storyline and characters."I just wished I cared about any of them...
Tiffany: exactly. We are constantly led to question. It does seem to provoke some split about caring about the characters, or not. I cared about almost everyone except Born. Even Margot, I felt sympathy for. She seemed broken. And Walker I identified with as somebody who had dreams and principles and got a little messed up along the way. Cecile and her mother seemed drawn into this web of what was going on, when their lives would have been far more suited to something more sedate and pleasant.
Throughout the story we have seen doubt cast on one character's version of events, by another. Here we see the key events of Part II denied by Gwyn. Do you believe her? How does this leave you feeling about truth in the book and in people's various accounts?
What about Born's final contributions? Is he a secret agent of some sort? What impact does this have on the events that went before?