Recently (August 11, 2007) in an interview with Argetinean writer Tomas Eloy Martinez Auster said that Chilean writer Roberto Bolaño has been a bit overestimated and that his novels reduced to half would have been better.
With all due respect to Paul, certainly a great American writer, if we applied the same logic to his writing (reeuce to half some of his novels) then we wouldn't have Paul Auster.

It took Bolaño less hat 10 years to become perhaps one of the geatest writers of all time in the Spanish language (as well as other languages) That alone shows the kind ow writer he is. It takes most writers a lifetime (Including Auster) to make a mark in the literary world. I think Paul should get to know Bolaño a bit better before blurting out comments like that.

Cheers,

Luciano.

It's hard to say as I haven't' read Bolano, and I will indeed. But it's always a subjective matter when it comes to concisiveness, which at the end of the day is a matter of style and preference. I, myself enjoy thoroughly high content delivery in a lesser amount of words rather than XIXth century French naturalism agonising over a tree's foliage (I'm not saying that what Bolano does). But hey, each his own. However, where your point is weakened, is:
a) That you're making a really false statement: It didn't take Auster a lifetime to get recognised at all, and he's been published and internationally acclaimed at a relatively young age.
b) That you're making an irrelevant one: Many a writer have been hailed has great new novelists rapidly. Especially in our celebrity and media frenzy era. That has never been synonym with talent or quality (and very often the opposite, unfortunately). Time has simply got nothing to do with it. And there are countless examples in one way (quick: e.g, Auster, or, possibly, Bolano) or the other way (John Kennedy Toole died before he was famous).