Rating  - A Chore to Read
I decided to read this book because of the enthusiasm and hype that has surrounded it. I took it with me to read while on a plane trip. The only reason I was able to get through the first 100 pages was because I had no appealing alternatives as I was trapped next to the window for my several hour airplane ride.
As others have said, the book is overwritten. While there is a lot of descriptive language, it is overdone and often irrelevant. At times it felt like the author wanted the reader to know how many words he knew or could use to describe something that was quite simplistic. The characters, except for Briony, are mostly absent, and Briony is just plain unlikeable. I had read that Ian McEwan did an outstanding job of infiltrating the psychology of the characters--I wholeheartedly disagree. The characters were barely present, therefore hard to care about or empathize with.
The "mystery" of the book was easy enough to figure out. After finally making in through the first part, I was intrigued and wanted to keep reading. While I thought the "mystery" wasn't really a mystery at all and an obvious conclusion, I was hoping for some great twist or turning point -- hoping that I hadn't figured out what really happened on the night around which the story was built. Unfortunately, there was no such twist, just disappointment that the truth was so obvious.
Then, in hoping that Briony might recant, I continued to keep reading. Again, disappointed with the anticipation of something that never came to fruition.
The parts of the book are abrupt transitions from one another. Each part requires the same determination as the first one to keep going even when it seems like the story isn't. When I finally was able to get interested in the new section, the book abruptly transitioned to the next section.
I read the book before reading any reviews, and was somewhat relieved to see that I wasn't the only person who was so sorely disappointed with the book. With all of the hype surrounding the book, I surely thought there must be something that I was missing.
I always try to take something away from the experience of reading a book, and there were a few instances throughout that caused me to stop and really think. One was when Briony was relating to her cousin and realizing how others and our reaction to others often help us to learn about ourselves. It is through how we relate and respond that we can learn something about ourselves that we didn't previous know, or hadn't thought about.
Another example was the depiction of the experience of Briony telling her story and then feeling trapped in her story with no space to modify it or turn back from it. This made me think about how often this probably happens with situations of similar magnitude as well as seemingly insignificant situations.
These are two examples of how I was able to use the book and relate it to life beyond the book.
Overall, two stars.
Rating  - Fascinating reading
I liked this book so much, especially with the movie adaptation. As is often the case, the psychological insight of the original book was invigorating to read. It is hard to see that some of us found the story less to their liking. In comparison with some quickreads, Atonement is something to savor and to come away from with wonder and even bittersweetness for the fate of its characters -- making a reader ask exactly what is real as Briony might have felt.
Rating - Couldn't get into it before viewing the movie . . .
. . . Couldn't really get into it after watching the movie, but actually managed to finish it this time. Would I read another book of Ian McEwan's? Not unless he changed his writing style drastically.
At first the book is hard to get into, because it flicks back and forth between the different characters' points of views. But then the film is the same. But the book is pages and pages of never ending description - with very little dialogue added in between. And when you do get dialogue, it seems to be all grouped together, before you get more pages and pages of description.
What I will say about the book is that the film was at least faithful to it. You know I hate watching movies of books that I loved (the recent Narnia movies being prime examples), but reading the book after watching the film, I saw a few more insights into what I liked in the movie, but didn't quite make sense.
What I will NEVER get about the movie or the book for that matter, is the whole Lola/Paul Marshall storyline. What girl marries the man who sexually abused her? Or was it consensual? Considering she looked like she was crying the second time at least, we can think it wasn't consensual? I found this whole storyline very difficult to understand, since she marries Paul in both the movie and the book.
The ending of the movie is also changed, and to be honest, I preferred the ending depicted in the movie. The ending in the book just didn't work. I'm not quite sure what it was, but I was still turning pages, trying to find the rest of it.
If I'm going to be brutally honest, I skimmed a lot of sections of this book. I still read it, but particularly the war section of the book (scenes I hated in the movie) I skimmed. I was certainly disappointed even more than I was first time around, and would only recommend it to readers of Ian McEwan's work. Certainly do not read as your first book.
Rating - Slightly bored; extremely confused
I won't reiterate the pros and cons of this novel, which many talented reviewers have done before.
I only want to pose a question to all readers -- because, having read the book through twice, I still don't get this part:
Lola and Paul Marshall. First he assaults her and she covers for him (falsely blaming her little brothers); then he rapes her and she covers for him again; then she marries him. WTF?
Alternate interpretation: They have consensual rough foreplay the first time; then consensual sex; and then she marries him. This would make sense -- if only I could convince myself that a 15-year-old upper-crust girl in 1935 England would have rough foreplay with a man she'd just met.
Alternate interpretation: She fought him off the first time, then had consensual sex the second time; then married him. Nope; that's another WTF. What girl of that era -- or any era -- would willingly have sex with a man who had just assaulted her?
I'm lost. Somebody, please, explain Lola's motivation to me. Otherwise, I am forced to go with my gut interpretation: Lola's actions make no sense, but we're just supposed to accept them because she's (a) a villainess and (b) a female (and therefore can be dismissed as irrational by nature), and (c) a minor character, quickly dispensed with, whose main duty is to be a Contrivance of the Plot.
Booker Prize, anyone?
Go to the Product Information page
page 2 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Customer Reviews for Anchor,0307388840,9780307388841,0307388840,823.914 |
