Amsterdam

Rating:
Summary: Brief but Satisfying
Review: There are lots of prizes given out around the world for achievement in fiction-writing. Some offer insight as to the excellence of a book; others less so. That said, I have yet to be disappointed with a novel that has won the Booker Prize. It is, in my mind, one of the best indicators of achievement in fiction. McEwan's novel is no exception.

This book opens at the funeral of Molly Lane where three of her former lovers cross paths. All are now prominent men in British society with reputations to protect and power over the lives of others. Due to some of the revelations of Molly's estate, the morality and friendship of these men is tested to an extreme which culminates in an ending in the city of Amsterdam which, if not a surprise, is certainly a beautiful piece of comedy and irony.

Though it suffers a bit from that common modern literary problem of brevity and predictability, this novel shines in its humor and character development. Even in Booker Prize winners, it must be expected that quality varies. This may not be my favorite of past winners, but it is certainly worth the time it takes to read it.

Rating:
Summary: Great style, not much substance
Review: Let's get this straight initially: I enjoyed reading this book, for it is well written. I found the characters quite interesting, and the story line kept me turning the pages at a fairly quick rate. The problem is that I really couldn't get into this book as much as I thought that I would have, after reading "Atonement", this author's latest work. Actually, I think the new book is far better than this one, although each has its own fine qualities. I don't want to put off anyone interested in reading this book, however, for it will be satisfying to most readers, and a good introduction to this author, if someone has not read him before this work. Just be prepared to be mildly disappointed by a prize-winning work.

Rating:
Summary: ~Two friends and a funeral~
Review: Ian McEwan weaves a fasinating adventure revolving around two friends, one a composer and the other a newspaper editor whom go to a funeral of an ex-lover. The two men struggling separately in their own careers are forced to deal with their own egocentricities as they become intertwined in a scandal that will affect the future of a third man, a high powered Politician, also a former lover.

Layer by layer the story unfolds as the connection they all share with the deceased will change their lives forever as the question of conscience versus ambition plays itself out with each one. It's a surprise at every turn and that is what I personally enjoy about the way the author spins a tale.

May I suggest one of his other books, "The Comfort of Strangers" which is equally entertaining and captivating about a man and a woman that take a vacation and end up in something like the "Twilight Zone".

Rating:
Summary: Good, liked "Atonement" better
Review: After reading "Atonement" which I loved, I couldn't wait to read this as well. Laced with scads of black humor, the story revolves around two good friends: Clive a brilliant composer, and Vernon the editor of a London newspaper who through a series of circumstances secure their fates. I didn't enjoy this as much as the wonderfully nuanced "Atonement". Still, McEwan is amazing at uncovering the darker side of human nature, and he does it with wit and style.

Rating:
Summary: Booker Prize?
Review: This book was decent...it was an easy read and kept me interested until the finish. Unfortunately the ending was pretty forced, leaving me to question what the Booker Prize is based on??

Rating:
Summary: what is all the fuss about?
Review: A story of two rich liberal morons (RLM) written by another RLM, critically acclaimed by a whole bunch of RLMs. It is readable though.

Rating:
Summary: Made for t.v. movie on paper
Review: I'm going to trash this book, but first I have to say that McEwan writes well line to line, as he explains where people are and what they're doing, and their surroundings. He's a master of efficiency and clarity of prose. Nothing I say below attacks his way of putting information across to the reader. Rather, it's the story he tells that bugs me. In short, it's just plain dumb.

If you like genre fiction, mysteries, suspense, then
you MIGHT like this, but if you're looking for literature

look elsewhere. And really, if you like genre fiction
the masters of the genres will probably satisfy you more
than this foray by an allegedly literary writer into what might be called suspense or mystery fiction.

There is VERY LITTLE character development in this 50,000 word
story (most novels are about 100,000 words; Amsterdam is really
a novella).

The story is all geared toward plot and feels VERY forced as things come together.

I'm starting to consider award labels (Booker Prize, Nat'l Book Award, Pulitzer, etc.) more as warning flags than anything else, given the low quality of many recent award winners (Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections, Michael Cunningham's The Hours, etc.). It's clear to me that in this business who you know and who likes you and who does not, plays a large role in things. Literary quality does not.

Now to give you a synopsis without giving away the whole story.
We have two friends, a newspaper man trying to save his job by boosting the circulation of his paper, and a composer trying to finish a symphony that must be done in time for a millenium celebration.

In the past they had both been the "lover" of a particular woman (maybe I should just avoid books that use the word "lover" seriously and not in jest). She's died, and in going through her things another man, her husband, finds scandalous photos of a particular politician that the newspaper man would love to bring down. Apparently the dead woman and this politician had been friends or more than friends at some time in the past and she took these lurid photos. The husband (widower) phones the newspaperman and offers him the photos.

Publishing these photos would boost the paper's circulation and bring down the politician who, because he is a conservative, is veiwed by all as evil. At least the newspaper man THINKS publishing the photos will ruin the politician. The newspaper man's composer friend disapproves of the plan to publish the photos on ethical grounds, then goes off on a trot to the country to find inspiration to finish his symphony.

While communing with nature the composer spies a man and woman engaged in a tussle. He doesn't know if it's a serious assault or just some lover's quarrel or what, but he really wants to finish his symphony (the deadline is looming), a bird has just whistled in his ear (literally) and inspired him, and he's afraid that if he doesn't act NOW and write down the music the bird has inspired, he'll lose it. Thus, he sits on the horns of a dilemma, help the woman and lose the song in his head and maybe miss his deadline, or run off and jot down the song inspired by the bird and let the woman fend for herself? Of course the right thing to do is clear, and most of us would have no problem deciding what to do, but this guy does.

I'll stop there. It's really silliness from my point of view. It's all based upon coincidence and situation, as a comedy should be, but not as a serious drama should be. I found it ridiculous. Not only that, but BECAUSE the only thing that matters here is plot, you really have no desire to read a lot of the stuff that goes on in between the big plot moments because you realize after a little reading that none of that in between stuff matters. It's filler. What you have hear is an outline for a t.v. movie.

And this is a serious criticism. This "novel" owes more to the history of television than it does to the history of literature. It is built upon Columbo, not upon Jane Austen, James Joyce, Henry James, George Eliot, Proust, Hemingway, or any author you can imagine. Even good genre fiction runs deeper than this.

And yes, I suppose t.v. got its ideas originally from books, but what I'm saying is this novel doesn't plumb through the depths of t.v. to THAT deeper literary source of t.v. drama; instead, it floats lazily in the t.v. cliche's built on top of the original literary sources of t.v. genre fiction.

Okay, that's all.

Rating:
Summary: Why Amsterdam?
Review: I have had this book on my tbr shelf for quite some time, and have been looking forward to read it. I had heard so many good things about Ian McEwan, and on top of it this book was a winner of the 1998 Booker Prize.

The book though did not meet any of my expectations. The book had a quite good start. A woman dies, and in her funeral two of her formal lovers meet. And Molly Lane's death makes them look upon their own life and vulnerability in a new way. How can they know how long they will live? How can they know that they will not get such a terribel decease as Molly Lane got? Better to die than take the risk. And they get a pact with each other to help each other to end their life if something happend.

This could have been a valuable book in the euthanasy debate, but instead the book is so flat, and McEwan manage to give no life to the carachters.

Also the name Amsterdam confuses me. It might have something to do with the liberal laws on euthanasy in the Netherlands. But we have to read to the very last pages of the book before Amsterdam gets any part at all.

The somewhat good and interesting part of the book, that made me give two instead of just one start, is the way Ian McEwan writes only half of the story, and the rest is up to the reader's imagination. You are bond to make up some of the story yourself, and a few places this works out.

Britt Arnhild Lindland

Rating:
Summary: Not McEwan's best, but that's still very good
Review: I've become a real fan of Ian McEwan this past year, and though I'm not completely through his catalog, I'm very impressed with his ability to have great ideas within a tight story. This may be his tightest story ... it moves very quickly, and the book can be finished in 3 to 4 hours.

The main characters, a composer and a newspaper editor, become embroiled in a political scandal that relates to the affair each has had with a recently deceased woman. Their friendship becomes strained, and the miscommunication that develops drives the story. The story moves quickly, and I disagree with those who dislike the ending -- it does work, at least for me.

I also think this book works as a good introduction to McEwan. Its spare style is indicative of his work. When you've finished this book, move on to Atonement or Enduring Love: both are excellent books.

A few general words about Ian McEwan. He pays great attention to the word choice in each sentence, but unlike some other post modern types, he has a real story with a real conflict. Among modern writers, there seems to be some dislike of plotting, but McEwan shows that you can write about interesting ideas and have a good story as well.

Rating:
Summary: A great LITTLE read
Review: If your like me, you like a great story with great characters, but get annoyed when books drag on too long. This book has all the ingredients of a great novel, without being overly long. McEwan sticks to the plot and the central characters, developing them quickly and getting right to the punch. No straying off on tangents or filling pages with unnecessary fluff. While this isn't one of the 10 best books I have ever read, it is a great story filled with characters you hate as well as any. Read it!