Ian McEwan

[MJReader]

One of the foremost novelists of our time. His prose is controlled, concise, eloquent. His insight into, and understanding of, the human psyche is unrivalled in contemporary fiction. He is nuanced, reasonable, highly aware of the the complexities of the world around him. His work in the last decade - Amsterdam, Atonement, Saturday, On Chesil Beach - is his absolute best, though I have a weakness for his dark, morbid early work, particularly First Love, Last Rites and The Cement Garden.

Given his apparently calm and reasonable nature, I am often surprised by the hostility towards him.

I just read his libretto for Michael Berkeley's opera, For You. Brilliant and funny.

[Stewart]

His work in the last decade - Amsterdam, Atonement, Saturday, On Chesil Beach - is his absolute best

I've enjoyed what I've read of his, and of those four I've managed three. Incidentally the only McEwans that I've read. Still to read his biggy, Atonement and have somehow remained spoiler free of it.

[fausto]

The reason of the hostility might very well be found not in his behaviour but in the hyperbole used by many to describe him. "His insight into, and understanding of, the human psyche is unrivalled in contemporary fiction.". I think not.

Nothing against him per se, but the only book I really enjoyed was Enduring love. Amsterdam was really lacking - a half-done job? while Black Dogs struck me as rather terrible.

[MJReader]

I don't think it's a hyperbolic claim. Only few authors come to mind who could possibly match his psychological depth. I doubt I'm alone in this opinion.

Amsterdam is unfairly criticized. I know many McEwan fans who can't abide it. I re-read it recently and was delighted. Though not his most original work, it may well be his best written novel, and it is certainly his satirical best. It has many remnants of his early, darker work.

[fausto]

I doubt I'm alone in this opinion.

No doubt in my mind: you are not alone. It might explain why some people's reaction tend to be so strongly negative... You know, counter-balancing the thing.

[lionel]

From this Saturday's Guardian Review, where McEwan writes an end-of-the-decade obituary of Updike: 'The Updike opus is so varied and rich that we will not have its full measure for years to come.' I've always thought that 'opus' refers only to one work or occasionally to a a collection of linked works (such as the Rabbit tetralogy), and that 'oeuvre' refers to the total body of work. Anyone know otherwise? If not, OK, we all make mistakes, but for a supposedly very good writer, McEwan makes far too many of them.

[Eric]

The word ?uvre is clear, but opus is a bit of an ambiguous word. It seems to mean a work if "on a large scale", whatever that means, but does tend to suggest only one work. Maybe, however, what McEwan is driving at is that Updike wrote a lot of works that fit together somehow, are linked as Lionel mentions, as opposed to a lot of separate and unrelated ones.

I imagine that writers put more effort into their novels than into their newspaper articles. But editors and proofreaders are not what they were. Also with authors of fiction, the editor should save a slipshod but generally talented author from such criticisms.

[lionel]

I imagine that writers put more effort into their novels than into their newspaper articles.

Yes, and this understandable, although you'd still imagine that they'd pay reasonable attention to the obvious. I recently, for instance, noticed Julian Barnes write of the 'your' as a possessive pronoun.

But editors and proofreaders are not what they were. Also with authors of fiction, the editor should save a slipshod but generally talented author from such criticisms.

Yes. There's a glorious grammatical howler in the first third or quarter of Enduring Love that I'm amazed passed through the revision and editorial process, but unfortunately the bookmark I left in the relevant place fell out before I could note it.

On a separate issue, yes, McEwan's talented, but I still fail to see why he's so popular, as he's not pushing the boat forward in any way - he just seems excessively overrated to me.

[SlowRain]

I read Atonement first and then The Innocent a little while later. I thought he did a better overall job with The Innocent, but I can see certain areas where he had improved with Atonement. Unfortunately, Atonement, while being a good story, was weighed down with minutiae. Certain aspects are quite brilliant, but on the whole it is merely okay. I'm betting I'll enjoy the movie more if I ever get around to it. I also think the perceived value of the novel will diminish as time goes by and the hype dissipates.

I think he's an okay-to-good writer, but not great.

[lionel]

Unfortunately, Atonement, while being a good story, was weighed down with minutiae. Certain aspects are quite brilliant, but on the whole it is merely okay. I'm betting I'll enjoy the movie more if I ever get around to it.

I really enjoyed the film, but I was only watching it to keep myself awake towards the end of a longhaul flight. On the other hand, after at least 24 hours without sleep, it did keep me awake, and I can still remember it, so maybe there's something in that.

blog

[kanman]

The New Yorker recently published this short story by Ian McEwan :

The Use of Poetry

I quite liked it.

[peter_d]

I just started reading Amsterdam. Maybe I shouldn't have looked at this thread before finishing it... an okay-to-good writer but not great?

[Colette Jones]

Don't worry, peter_d - there are plenty of us who rate McEwan much higher than that! I haven't read Amsterdam yet but will rectify that soon I think.

[Igu Soni]

I loved Saturday, hated Amsterdam.

[Liam]

I loved Saturday, hated Amsterdam.

I loved Amsterdam, hated Saturday.

[Igu Soni]

I loved Amsterdam, hated Saturday.

But then, I love naked women, find naked men repulsive.

[lionel]

But then, I love naked women, find naked men repulsive.

Ha, oh, I like it!

[Daniel del Real]

But then, I love naked women, find naked men repulsive.

Love naked women

Amsterdam was just ok

haven?t read Saturday

Hate naked men

[saliotthomas]

Barely OK i would say for Amterdam, and being nice.

Not read Saturday and do not intend to.

No the interesting stuff.

Good looking naked woman you animals ! You are just ready for anything female ?
I'm reading a novel about vickings and they are more picky that the lot of you, jesus !

As for naked man, i don't care if it's just for a chat and an handshake after the gym.
One does not have to have intercourse with anyone or anything naked.

I'm glad you haven't mentioned pets yet.

[miercuri]

I thought Amsterdam was pretty good and Saturday rather bad.
Need I specify my taste in men too?

Good looking naked woman you animals ! You are just ready for anything female ?
I'm reading a novel about vickings and they are more picky that the lot of you, jesus !

Epic win