180 reviews for:

Leviathan

Paul Auster

3.88 AVERAGE

emotional mysterious medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven: Character
Strong character development: Yes
Loveable characters: Yes
Diverse cast of characters: No
Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

We learn about the life of a man through the words of his best friend and a collection of some unreliable narrations, wich means that everyone can make of this novel it's own interpretation, and as much as it can be seen as Sach's founding of his true calling, it can also be seen as him continuously falling in a downward spiral after his accident.
The political topics are interesting enough to keep you reading it, but at it's core this is a story about a friendship, and how every little thing can change both of them lives.
Don't know if this is a book for everyone, it can start slow and if you aren't really into Auster's style you might find it boring, as a fan of the guy, I really enjoyed it and would strongly recommend
Even though it might not seem like the main story, the protagonist's journey has a lot of finding what you truly want in life, and his journey to true happiness can be seen either mirrored or opposed in Ben's journey, that to me it's the heart of this book
dark emotional mysterious
Plot or Character Driven: Plot
adventurous mysterious tense medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven: A mix
Strong character development: Complicated
Loveable characters: Yes
Diverse cast of characters: Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus: Complicated

he conectado con esta novela mucho más que con La Trilogía de Nueva York. la historia no dejó de sorprenderme, era como ver una película. se pasaba un poco con las americanadas pero teniendo en cuenta que el escritor era un señor estadounidense tampoco esperaba menos.
reflective slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven: Character
Strong character development: No
Loveable characters: No
Diverse cast of characters: No
Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

 Leviathan is one of those novels that stares very seriously at the smoke curling off a matchstick and whispers “America.”

Paul Auster’s 1992 literary labyrinth is all about identity, authorship, and the blurry edges between fact and fiction. It’s got paranoia, homemade manifestos, and an unreliable narrator who makes you question everything—including why you started reading this in the first place.

The vibes are pure white man literary fiction: lofty ideas, meta-narratives, and women who are largely symbolic, sexualized, or conveniently mysterious. I kept waiting for one of them to exist beyond the lens of male obsession. No such luck. Gandalf (my cat, not the wizard) tried to chew through the book while I was still mid-read, presumably to fix the plot or steal the spotlight. Fair.

And yet, Auster’s fascination with how lives spiral and stories shape reality did hook me. Just… not enough to ignore how thin the female characters feel in comparison to the Big Male Thoughts™. 
dark emotional informative mysterious reflective tense medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven: Character
Strong character development: Yes
Loveable characters: Complicated
Diverse cast of characters: No
Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

Phenomenal story, almost incredible how one can write this 

minkimonki's review

4.0
challenging mysterious sad medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven: Character
Strong character development: Yes
Loveable characters: No
Diverse cast of characters: No
Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven: Character
Strong character development: Complicated
Diverse cast of characters: Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven: Character
Diverse cast of characters: No
mysterious medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven: Character
Strong character development: Complicated
Loveable characters: Complicated

A bit of a weird one. An author recounts the life and death of a friend and fellow author. Can we trust the narrator when the narrator doesn’t always trust what the other people are telling him?

The first 50 pages had me wondering if I should keep going with it. Auster describes the character Sachs in such a monotonous way. Every paragraph read like this: Sachs seemed to be X, but really under the surface he was the opposite. It did get more interesting after a bit.

I won't go into detail about what happens...it's compelling but keeps the reader at a distance. I never really believed in the characters or cared about them.