Atonement by Ian McEwan - Revision history

Sue at 12:09, 30 August 2020

2020-08-30T12:09:21Z

Sue at 10:02, 11 May 2018

2018-05-11T10:02:37Z

Sue at 08:32, 11 May 2018

2018-05-11T08:32:56Z

Sue at 13:42, 3 April 2018

2018-04-03T13:42:57Z

Sue at 13:28, 23 March 2018

2018-03-23T13:28:00Z

Sue at 14:01, 11 December 2014

2014-12-11T14:01:03Z

Sue at 16:39, 7 April 2013

2013-04-07T16:39:38Z

Sue at 13:21, 24 November 2012

2012-11-24T13:21:56Z

Keith at 11:10, 7 November 2009

2009-11-07T11:10:58Z

Keith: 1 revision

2009-10-24T17:29:37Z

1 revision

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:09, 30 August 2020
Line 28:		Line 28:

	I'm in a quandary. The book is undoubtedly brilliant but it left me feeling vaguely unsatisfied and I can only think that this comes down to two points. The first is that I found myself too conscious of the literary device of writing a book about writing a book, too conscious of just how clever McEwan is to really appreciate the story - which is, after all, why I read the book. The other point which worries me more is that I couldn't really warm to the characters and particularly Briony Tallis. Perhaps this is because McEwan was a man writing as a woman doing what mostly men would have done at the time he was writing about. Somewhere along the line it just didn't work for me.		I'm in a quandary. The book is undoubtedly brilliant but it left me feeling vaguely unsatisfied and I can only think that this comes down to two points. The first is that I found myself too conscious of the literary device of writing a book about writing a book, too conscious of just how clever McEwan is to really appreciate the story - which is, after all, why I read the book. The other point which worries me more is that I couldn't really warm to the characters and particularly Briony Tallis. Perhaps this is because McEwan was a man writing as a woman doing what mostly men would have done at the time he was writing about. Somewhere along the line it just didn't work for me.
		+
		+	You might appreciate [[Thief by Maureen Gibbon]].

	{{amazontext\|amazon=0099429799}}		{{amazontext\|amazon=0099429799}}

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 This is, without doubt, a superb book. The writing is masterly. In the first part of the book the events are momentous but there's still a sense of drifting, going nowhere. It's unlike any McEwan that I've read before but it's a perfect evocation of that period just before the Second World War when we hurtled unknowingly, unthinkingly into Hell. The second part, when we follow Robbie at Dunkirk, is more the McEwan that I know and where he's possibly strongest. I could smell the battle and taste the defeat. It's an elegant refutation of the 'heroic rescue' which has found its place in British history. How small is Briony's crime in the context of such carnage?
-It's a tribute to the book to say that it's very difficult to review. I have a feeling of being reluctant to mention an incident or a setting as it really should be met in the context of the story. It's complex, many-layered and brilliantly crafted. There are nods to so many other books, from ''Northanger Abbey'', to ''A Passage to India'', Margaret Atwood's ''The Handmaid's Tale'', even [[Henry James]]. I was left with a sense, not of pleasure at being reminded of those works, but regret that there were most certainly others that I didn't see.
+It's a tribute to the book to say that it's very difficult to review. I have a feeling of being reluctant to mention an incident or a setting as it really should be met in the context of the story. It's complex, many-layered and brilliantly crafted. There are nods to so many other books, from ''Northanger Abbey'', to ''A Passage to India'', Margaret Atwood's ''The Handmaid's Tale'', even Henry James. I was left with a sense, not of pleasure at being reminded of those works, but regret that there were most certainly others that I didn't see.
 I'm in a quandary. The book is undoubtedly brilliant but it left me feeling vaguely unsatisfied and I can only think that this comes down to two points. The first is that I found myself too conscious of the literary device of writing a book about writing a book, too conscious of just how clever McEwan is to really appreciate the story - which is, after all, why I read the book. The other point which worries me more is that I couldn't really warm to the characters and particularly Briony Tallis. Perhaps this is because McEwan was a man writing as a woman doing what mostly men would have done at the time he was writing about. Somewhere along the line it just didn't work for me.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 This is, without doubt, a superb book. The writing is masterly. In the first part of the book the events are momentous but there's still a sense of drifting, going nowhere. It's unlike any McEwan that I've read before but it's a perfect evocation of that period just before the Second World War when we hurtled unknowingly, unthinkingly into Hell. The second part, when we follow Robbie at Dunkirk, is more the McEwan that I know and where he's possibly strongest. I could smell the battle and taste the defeat. It's an elegant refutation of the 'heroic rescue' which has found its place in British history. How small is Briony's crime in the context of such carnage?
-It's a tribute to the book to say that it's very difficult to review. I have a feeling of being reluctant to mention an incident or a setting as it really should be met in the context of the story. It's complex, many-layered and brilliantly crafted. There are nods to so many other books, from [[Northanger Abbey]], to [[A Passage to India]], Margaret Atwood's ''The Handmaid's Tale'', even [[Henry James]]. I was left with a sense, not of pleasure at being reminded of those works, but regret that there were most certainly others that I didn't see.
+It's a tribute to the book to say that it's very difficult to review. I have a feeling of being reluctant to mention an incident or a setting as it really should be met in the context of the story. It's complex, many-layered and brilliantly crafted. There are nods to so many other books, from ''Northanger Abbey'', to ''A Passage to India'', Margaret Atwood's ''The Handmaid's Tale'', even [[Henry James]]. I was left with a sense, not of pleasure at being reminded of those works, but regret that there were most certainly others that I didn't see.
 I'm in a quandary. The book is undoubtedly brilliant but it left me feeling vaguely unsatisfied and I can only think that this comes down to two points. The first is that I found myself too conscious of the literary device of writing a book about writing a book, too conscious of just how clever McEwan is to really appreciate the story - which is, after all, why I read the book. The other point which worries me more is that I couldn't really warm to the characters and particularly Briony Tallis. Perhaps this is because McEwan was a man writing as a woman doing what mostly men would have done at the time he was writing about. Somewhere along the line it just didn't work for me.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 This is, without doubt, a superb book. The writing is masterly. In the first part of the book the events are momentous but there's still a sense of drifting, going nowhere. It's unlike any McEwan that I've read before but it's a perfect evocation of that period just before the Second World War when we hurtled unknowingly, unthinkingly into Hell. The second part, when we follow Robbie at Dunkirk, is more the McEwan that I know and where he's possibly strongest. I could smell the battle and taste the defeat. It's an elegant refutation of the 'heroic rescue' which has found its place in British history. How small is Briony's crime in the context of such carnage?
-It's a tribute to the book to say that it's very difficult to review. I have a feeling of being reluctant to mention an incident or a setting as it really should be met in the context of the story. It's complex, many-layered and brilliantly crafted. There are nods to so many other books, from [[Northanger Abbey]], to [[A Passage to India]], Margaret Atwood's [[The Handmaid's Tale]], even [[Henry James]]. I was left with a sense, not of pleasure at being reminded of those works, but regret that there were most certainly others that I didn't see.
+It's a tribute to the book to say that it's very difficult to review. I have a feeling of being reluctant to mention an incident or a setting as it really should be met in the context of the story. It's complex, many-layered and brilliantly crafted. There are nods to so many other books, from [[Northanger Abbey]], to [[A Passage to India]], Margaret Atwood's ''The Handmaid's Tale'', even [[Henry James]]. I was left with a sense, not of pleasure at being reminded of those works, but regret that there were most certainly others that I didn't see.
 I'm in a quandary. The book is undoubtedly brilliant but it left me feeling vaguely unsatisfied and I can only think that this comes down to two points. The first is that I found myself too conscious of the literary device of writing a book about writing a book, too conscious of just how clever McEwan is to really appreciate the story - which is, after all, why I read the book. The other point which worries me more is that I couldn't really warm to the characters and particularly Briony Tallis. Perhaps this is because McEwan was a man writing as a woman doing what mostly men would have done at the time he was writing about. Somewhere along the line it just didn't work for me.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{infobox
+{{infobox1
 |title=Atonement
 |author=Ian McEwan
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 |date=May 2002
 |isbn=978-0099429791
-|amazonuk=<amazonuk>0099429799</amazonuk>
+|cover=0099429799
-|amazonus=<amazonus>038572179X</amazonus>
+|aznuk=0099429799
 }}

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 |buy=Maybe
 |borrow=Yes
 |pages=384
 |publisher=Vintage
@@ Line 29: / Line 28: @@
 I'm in a quandary. The book is undoubtedly brilliant but it left me feeling vaguely unsatisfied and I can only think that this comes down to two points. The first is that I found myself too conscious of the literary device of writing a book about writing a book, too conscious of just how clever McEwan is to really appreciate the story - which is, after all, why I read the book. The other point which worries me more is that I couldn't really warm to the characters and particularly Briony Tallis. Perhaps this is because McEwan was a man writing as a woman doing what mostly men would have done at the time he was writing about. Somewhere along the line it just didn't work for me.
-{{amazontext|amazon=0099429799}} {{waterstonestext|waterstones=5383053}}
+{{amazontext|amazon=0099429799}}
 {{commenthead}}
 {{comment
 |name=Magda
 |verb=said
-|comment=
+|comment=I think quite a few people have a problem with McEwan because of him being too clever and visibly so. I love it, though. But I have not read this one.
 }}
 {{comment
 |name=Sue
 |verb=replied
-|comment=
+|comment=But you're clever, Magda! He just makes me feel inadequate.
 }}

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 |amazonus=<amazonus>038572179X</amazonus>
 }}
 On a hot summer's day in 1935 thirteen-year-old Briony Tallis is planning the performance of a play which she has written in honour of her brother Leon. The actors are her cousins, fifteen-year-old Lola and the nine-year-old twins Jackson and Pierrot. Also there, home from college, is Briony's sister, Cecilia, who has confused emotions about Robbie Turner, son of the Tallis' cleaning lady. Whilst watering some flowers Cecilia and Robbie break a vase and Cecilia strips to her underwear to jump into the fountain and retrieve the fragments. Robbie is startled and Briony, who sees what happens, doesn't know what to make of it. It is the fountain which is to change everything.

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:29, 24 October 2009
(No difference)