Just finished Paul Auster's Invisible--typically Auster-y; if you're already on board with him, you will like it.
My thoughts exactly - I love Auster, but all of his books are essentially the same, and this one is no different, but with added ambiguous incest.
I dunno, it seemed pretty unambiguous to me...
His books aren't all the same the way some other writers' are, but thematically or spiritually, they're all the same book. And there's nothing wrong with that, if you're a good enough writer, which he is.
I've only read City of Glass but that was pretty wild. I feel like university has screwed with my enthusiasm for postmodern literature, which I don't even necessarily know if this guy subscribes to.
It was university that got me onto Auster initially, as Leviathan was a set text in a module on terrorism in literature. It was great in that I don't know if I would have been so easily exposed to him otherwise, but has the side effect of me formulating essay questions whenever I'm reading him.
City of Glass and the other two parts of The New York Trilogy are great, but my favourite of his, and possibly the novel that strays furthest from his usual concerns (although perhaps here they are just transferred to another medium) is Book of Illusions, which has a real emotional kick to it. In a way, I'd compare the similarity in themes and spirit in his books with a favoured band who don't stray too far from their initial sound (and I'm not saying that's always a good thing); a new novel or record is pretty much going to be some more of the stuff I enjoy, but slightly different from the last one.
On a completely different note, has anyone read the John Darnielle 33/3 book on Master of Reality?