Wish Invisible had been more straightforward - but then it wouldn't have been an Auster novel

Okay, I admit, a little disappointed at the conclusion of Paul Auster's "Invisible," he does promise more than he can reasonably deliver, and the central mysteries of these characters - particularly Born - Margot - Adam Walker - are not sufficiently developed or revealed. Why does Born single out Walker (in NYC in 1967) in the first place and offer him $ to start a literary magazine? Who really is Born and what is his motive, what are his games? What about Margot - why is she so drawn to this handsome guy 10 years her junior, why is she with Born in the first place, what's her role in all of this? What about the killing of Cedric Williams - is it likely or possible that Born did it? I really thought we'd plumb to a deeper level of mystery, that the issue of Born as a spy or double-agent would play a deeper role in the plot, and it really doesn't. Still, the story is quite compelling and Auster's writing very evocative and he does explore an important issue: how a single moment early in life can set the course for a whole life of suffering, remorse, and longing. This is a great theme for fiction. I almost wish that this had been a simpler novel - even though it is one of Auster's most straightforward - and that he had told it simply from the POV of the (dying) Adam Walker as he looks back on his life and tries to make sense of his encounter with Born and how it changed him. That would have posed the problem of how we learn Cecile's story, which the central narrator (don't even remember his name) uncovers, but Auster could have worked that out - but then it wouldn't have been Auster novel, so you take it as it comes. This is one of his best.