Comments on: Atonement, by Ian McEwan

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 21:00:02 +0000

If you pardon my ‘French’, I thought that the whole book was a complete mindf£&k as I read the first part thinking how badly written it was, the second part a bit freaked because McEwan had deliberately written the first part badly, to show it was written by the naive Brioney, and then I slogged my way through the blood and guts of escaping Dunkirk, and was touched by the heart lifting reunions of part 3 only to be….I won’t spoil it but I’ve rarely been through such a journey. I agree with the review of Chesil Beach as it would never have been published if written by an unknown.

By: Aimee

Aimee — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:23:35 +0000

I just came upon this and I just thought that this book is almost entire meta, and I think all the problems with the prose and the tone and the ANNOYING BITCHES WHO DON’T STOP THINKING and the insincerity of all genuinely come from the fact that Briony, that bitch, is actually writing the thing. Which explains the faux-Lolita-wannabe writing.

By: algelic

algelic — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:40:31 +0000

I don’t like books with long descriptions, much less if they go on and on about the character’s thoughts on trivial things.

I had the Atonement book lying on my bedside table, for me to read when I finished schoolwork, but as I started reading it was just so detailed that I saved it for another time. Then I watched the movie and really liked it, but then I thought ‘What? This is actually a “short” story. Do you mean in the book it gets told in so many POVs like that?’ and haven’t read it yet.

By: bkclubcare

bkclubcare — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:09:09 +0000

I chuckle at this review because I loved Atonement and On Chesil Beach and I dont really know why! I totally get your complaints here and yet, I was amazed at McEwan’s writing. But I won’t defend it, either.

My mom thought Atonement was…. “wordy.” I adore my mom’s one word reviews.

By: jenclair

jenclair — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:42:59 +0000

I didn’t like it either. Didn’t care what happened to any of them!

I’ve got you down for The Sonambulist drawing on Wed. Thanks for stopping by my blog!

By: imani

imani — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:37:45 +0000

HA. What a way to describe a headache. I think McEwan’s too smart for me. I didn’t really get it and was kind of confused — what? she has a ferret in her brain? what’s he getting at there….

Yeah, persons have recommended his fiction up to Enduring Love and avoid the later stuff but…hmmm.

By: jennysbooks

jennysbooks — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:47:16 +0000

I suppose I feel guilty tagging things as being loathed. It sounds so vehement. But you’re quite right. I’ve tagged it loathed now. It’s not really fair to have only one book (and one I didn’t finish!) in that category.

And I will absolutely skip Chesil Beach – thanks! I can’t imagine ever picking up another book by Ian McEwan again, frankly. 🙂

By: Cam

Cam — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:14:45 +0000

Hi Jenny. I just found your blog (via Ella @ Box of Books). Given what you said about Atonement I'm wondering what qualifies a book to be tagged 'Books I loathed'? I've now read 3 McEwan books, all torturous experiences. Yes, he is a great observer of human nature, but GET ON WITH IT. While reading Atonement I kept thinking: "and when is he going to write about neurology?" Ah -- 3 different times: Emily's headaches, the dying French soldier (at least I remember that from the movie but I think I blocked it from my brain after reading), and Briony's declining health as an old woman. Arghhhhh. Oh I'm so impressed that he could do research and use it in 3 books! At least there is a plot in Atonement and something of one in Saturday. I'd recommend that you skip Chesil Beach.