Paul Auster's Invisible is really a simple story. The difficult part comes in when the reader must decide who is telling the truth, and what that truth consists of in the final analysis.
A manuscript entitled 1967 is sent to an old friend by a dying man. It is divided into sections, finally Spring, Summer and Fall. Are we to believe the original narrator, or, for that matter, believe the transitional narrator? What is their agenda, if any? Did, or could the events chronicled in the manuscript have happened, or are they the product of a weak and/or deranged mind? Murder, betrayal, intrigue abound, Auster style.
Each reader must decide for themselves.
Recommended 4/5
This was an inadvertent reread for me, as I believe I mentioned elsewhere. I am glad it happened though.