My copy was softcover, so that is a bit odd...?
I would agree with parts of the introduction, when the author claimed that Stephen Crane, forgotten by my generation, deserved perhaps not to be. Crane's import to American literature and history was probably sufficient to deserve then a better biographer than Paul Auster, or at least a more stringent editor.
For one, the book is enormous, bloated, and poorly edited. I certainly didn't read all of it, nor indeed barely even portion of it; too absolutely packed with unnecessary, dull, or inconsequential facts, this autobiography is immediately inaccessible to the casual reader and instead promises value to only the most determined scholars.
Like other non-scholarly biographies that I have read, this book attempts to provide a surfeit of pointless information, most likely to produce a veneer of respectability. In doing so, they alienate the overwhelming majority of readers; however, the lack of adequate editing suggests also a lack of peer-review and scholarly accountability. I fear this book will thus fail to satisfy the casual reader and the true scholar; who then is left, I have no idea.
I've read books like this before, namely, non-academic nonfiction in the form of bloated biographies of historical intellectuals forgotten by modern society. To that end, I suspect it guilty of many of the same failings of its genre: specifically, a dull surfeit of rote 'fact' to plaster over weak or patently false conclusions that the lazy (or uncreative?) authors either proffer or simply propagate.
Specifically, while doing research in undergrad into Edward Lane, one of the first translators of the Arabian Nights into english, I read such a biography. This book repeated many of the same simplistic and demonstrably false criticisms that Lane's contemporary detractors and critics had first introduced. These criticisms, designed to sell competitors' versions of the Arabian Nights, then echoed down decades into this shi*tty biography written by a clearly unscrupulous researcher, packaged as truths. That a jingoistic, racist, and orientalist author with clearly voyeuristic tendencies could still be chiefly derided as 'sesquipedalian' and 'biblical' is just so overly simplistic, demonstrably inaccurate, and frankly about as dull a conclusion about a man living just before the peak of Victorian imperialism could be.
While I now run the risk of conflating two separate works, one of which I was unable to even read more than a portion of, and certainly didn't do the many hours of independent research to adequately fact check, I do still suspect that this book's primary messages may need to be considered with a grain of salt. I truly hope that there will be those that read this book and can utterly refute my comments; I hope too that this work provides the impetus to return Stephen Crane, clearly a dynamic and influential individual in his time, to the public forefront. I just doubt it.
For my final thought, I want to leave one last criticism: within the very first few pages (somewhere within at least the first five...) comes a glorious run-on sentence that proceeds to cover over an entire page. Seriously???? Did no copy editor have any questions about that, no confusion or concern about the syntax? Within five pages as it was, even the most lax of editors should have caught this blatant offense and so I can only conclude that virtually no editing could have been done; this single sentence certainly influenced my doubt towards the validity of all information contained within.
I think that cutting this book in half, simplifying the useless detritus, and editing aggressively, could yet produce a diamond in the rough.
Just not yet. Sorry Paul. And sorry to anyone else who attempted to read this book. :/