I really appreciated the illustrations in this graphic novel, it made the story a lot more real to me. There are times in the book when I read the text and I just merely accepted it and I didn't realize it until there were times in the graphic novel where I felt like the message was brought across to me so much clearer than before. One example was in the book when Quinn decides to become homeless, the book mentions that he begins to lose his grip on the situation and does not keep as accurate of a journal in the red notebook. The story just continued and I didn't think much of it, while in the graphic novel on page 107 the images of reality blur and the truth of what was happening to Quinn hit me a lot faster than it did before.
One thing I noticed but didn't quite understand in the graphic novel version of City of Glass was Karasik's illustrations of faces. He constantly goes back and forth between a realistic and abstract depiction. It first became prominent to me after Peter Stillman's speech. The initial introduction we get of both him and Virginia is a fairly realistic image of a numan face. After Peter's story, however, the appearance of both faces changes completely. While sitting in the chair Peter and Virginia have very simplified faces with strong lines to portray facial features, eliminating any details. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of making such drastic changes between frames is. I also thought it was kind of interesting that they were drawn with so little detail when Quinn is trying to take the role of a detective, who is supposed to be extremely detail-oriented in order not to miss any clues.
I also enjoyed the illustrations in City of Glass: The Graphic Novel. I especially like how the real Paul Aster was depicted (on page 88). because when reading City of Glass I pictured him as a partially young guy with scruffy facial hair. I also felt as if the pictures made the overall plot less confusing. It was definitely an easier read than the original City of Glass. There were moments in City of Glass that perplexed me, but when reading the graphic version, I was able to follow everything that occurred.
I feel the graphic novel of City of Glass really illustrated the maze-like layers of the story. The actions of all the characters, especially Quinn, can be physically seen; sometimes, the layers seem to be mixed together and it is unclear to the audience who is who. I really enjoyed the comic on panel six where Quinn is speaking of how during his walks "he was able to feel that he was nowhere". The maze image is in the middle of a white background in the middle of no where, just as Quinn is.
I accidentally read this version of the book for last week instead of the text version and was extremely confused. now after reading the text version and then rereading the graphic version i understand the story more. for me when i read the graphic novel without the text i got extremely confused at the switching of characters. other then the confusion, one thing i liked about the graphic version was the zooming in and out in certain panels to show a slow passage of time. it gives the illusion of time slightly passing, similar to slow zooming in a movie. it was a nice way to space out the sentences in multiple panels.
I like the City of Glass illustrated version a bit more than The New York Triology. The illustrations throughout it are interesting and somewhat difficult to comprehend when associating it with the novel. Although I do feel it helped to identify the characters easier; identifying who was who because I found myself turning back to parts of the book very much and would try to connect the images together to make a better understanding. The layout of the comic was quite simple but with a lot of meaning. There were a lot of small frames, each being around the same size. Overall, I would say I would have probably perferred reading this version before the one we read first. Allowed for better understanding
One thing I noticed while reading the graphic novel version of City of Glass were the various styles of illustration Auster uses to depict each panel. The majority of the story is drawn cartoon style, but also included are photo-realistic images (the Tower of Babel looks like a picture from a history textbook), icons (Virginia's explanation of her husband), and simple line drawings (the discussion on Henry Dark and language). I wondered what the significance was in depicting these scenes in this particular way. Would it have made the story seem more real if the characters were drawn like real life? If so, I would be a bit unnerved seeing the two possible elder Stillmans emerging from each other. The fact that the story is drawn cartoon-like made me feel even though the concept of identity crisis is serious, it's not as real and in your face.
The graphic novel version of City of Glass had many interesting illustrations. There were many parts of the graphic novel that seemed to be depicted differently than The New York Trilogy. Character definition was clear at some points but unrecognizable at times. I thought it was useful using the text version inorder to distinguish certain parts of the story.
A recurring theme that I noticed in the graphic novel version of City of Glass was panning into or out of an object across a few frames. The purpose of this, I believe, was simply to single out important things and draw attention to them. However, I felt like it was a bit overused at times. The scene when young Peter Stillman was telling his story and there were pictures of all of the random objects was very confusing to me. I'm sure that there were meanings to all of the pictures, but I just couldn't figure it out.