Rating: 
Summary: Compressed Quaility
Review: McEwan's booker prize-winning novel traces the consequencesof a Machiavellian attitude towards work. Clive Linly a composer withan established reputation and Vernon Hailliday, editor of the struggle daily paper, The Judge, renew their former friendship at the funeral of their former lover, the larger than life forty-something year old Molly Lane.There they meet George Lane, Molly's husband and another former lover Julian Garmony, the Foreign Secretary, who's despised by Molly's former lovers. The novel traces the lives of the four men after Molly's funeral when they all face pinnacle moments in both their private and professional lives. Amsterdam is a book without heroes. The characters fail to grab your sympathy, but this adds to the reader's curiosity as you try to unravel their true worth and nature. It's not a book about how the strong and ruthless survive but rather how obsession with work can turn into self-obsession and ultimately destruction as the books characters take personal desire over public responsibility. The book's 196 pages make it more of a novella than a novel and some would argue that more time should have been given over to plot and character development. However an expansion of the books length could have faltered the quick tempo, that McEwan's rich language lends to the book, and the vagueness of the characters leads us to question rather than condemn them at the end, allowing for the books effect to linger long after the final page has been read. This books quality has been questioned in comparison to other Booker winners but Amsterdam, a book so rich in dramatic irony should be judged on its own merits. This socio-political satire manages to examine such a thorny issue as human morality in a humorous and entertaining fashion and is a recommended read.
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: Boring
Review: The writing style is Nabokovian without Nabokov's sensuality and intimacy with his environment. The characters are cardboard caricatures, that limp along at an indolent pace. There's little dialogue, largely replaced by the author's narrative of their reactions and intentions, without anyone saying much. The pieces fit together provided segues are not a prerequisite. Two friends -- withdrawn into their own private worlds -- are drawn into a conflict over pictures about a Foreign Secretary's cross-dressing; the Secretary also wants the Prime Minister's job which the pictures will destroy. The editorial friend knows he has to pander the pictures to increase circulation. Conflict is just theorectical, because each character can only act as circumstances of each demands that theydo what they would obviously do. And, to tidy matters in the end, our two friends poison each other. Obviously, the plot is thin. So is the book, which is large print on less than 200 pages. Character development is something the reader has to determine for him or herself; I thought there was little to no development. and little reflection on the significance of what I read. To say I found this Brooker Prized novel a bore should be obvious.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent visit to a personal Waterloo
Review: I read "Amsterdam" after reading Ian McEwan's amazing "Atonement," and I think the key theme for both books is that bad things happen to relatively good people who commit moral wrongs, while good things happen to those who are innately or inherently bad. That's because good people are burdened with a conscience, a good person's Achilles' heel. After reading this book, I realized that no true "hero" is present in either book, unless you consider the wronged servant's son, Robbie, in Atonement, and Molly Lane, in Amsterdam. Of course, Molly appears in the book only as a reflection, since the story begins at her funeral. But she is the wronged innocent person in this story. All the former men in her life are not really evil, they are just opportunists and egoists. Worst of all, they are all rivals on some level, and that's what does two of them in. The composer Clive Linley and his editor friend Vernon Halliday actually have good intentions, but when the editor betrays Molly after her death (thanks to her now widower husband, George Lane), their intentions go awry, along with their friendship. As in Atonement, the struggle between good and evil is chiefly internal. In Atonement, one of the main players is undone by a self righteous deed performed during a bout of heightened self importance. In Amsterdam, Clive and Vernon suffer the same fate, turning on each other when confronted by the immorality of their actions. And, as in Atonement, the more unsavory characters continue on their way, unburdened by any conflict of internal doubts. If Ian McEwan had written It's a Wonderful Life, George Bailey would have jumped into the river, after convincing himself to do something crookedly noble to replace the Savings and Loan's missing money and then having to face his conscience as a result; and at the very end, Mr. Potter would be counting his new money, having no conscience to make him second guess any actions on his part that helped lead to Bailey's death or the collapse of the Savings and Loan. "Amsterdam" is filled with dark humor, and a lesson that men of good conscience had best follow it. However, though "Amsterdam" won the Booker Prize and "Atonement" did not, I still believe "Atonement" is the far greater achievement.
Rating: 
Summary: Guilty Pleasure for the Literate
Review: At one point Clive asks himself 'when does an artist abandon his high intentions and go for fame or the quick buck?' With this book, McEwan seems to answer his own self-conscious question: 'somewhere around chapter five'. There is nothing wrong with Amsterdam. It holds your attention and is a fine quick read. McEwan, however, is plainly capable of better. Until the final chapter, when the narrative moves to Amsterdam, the novel's value is derived precisely from its intelligence and subtle insights into art, capitalism, friendship, and betrayal. (The first hundred or so pages tackle the theme of "the double" as well as anything I've read post Dostoyevsky.) Unfortunately, the finale makes clear that McEwan's work amounts only to a superior telling of an inferior story. The tragedy of Amsterdam is not merely the conniving and contrived fates of the protagonists: It is, more acutely, the author's betrayal of his own intelligence.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful Start, Lukewarm Ending
Review: Love Ian McEwan. This is a writer who'll call you names, but will giggle still and kiss you afterwards. His comedy and his portrait of modern life (or modern Britain during and after the Thatcher years) is without equal, and one should thank him for it. But AMSTERDAM, his most critically-acclaimed work so far, is too obscure, too 'crammed' a book for this reviewer to highly recommend (Not that there is a need for it. This one, afterall, won THE Booker Prize). Here, four brilliantly constructed characters attempt to out-manouvre each other for no given reason (or is it perhaps because of pride? you decide). You will find it entertaining and inspiring to read how McEwan engineered each of his plots to deliver a psychological study (no matter how small the examination is) of his four major characters. You will feel their pain, their bitterness, their loneliness, their heartlessness, yet in a narrative that is straightforward and unsentimental. (His Julian Garmony, a cross-dressing politician of brilliant machiavellian talent, is one character you'll either love or hate. McEwan's account of Garmony's grasp of power simply is wonderful). Reading AMSTERDAM is like experiencing a Toni Morisson novel written by a PBS or an Economist (UK weekly mag) journalist, and this, I know, is not a bad thing. This is a good introduction to McEwan, and a book highly enjoyable. But, as mentioned briefly above, the ending is quite lukewarm...
Rating:
Summary: Boring
Review: The writing style is Nabokovian without Nabokov's sensuality and his intimacy with the environment. The characters are cardboard caricatures, that limp along at an indolent pace. There's precious little dialogue, largely replaced by the author's narrative of their reactions and intentions The pieces fit together provided logical segues are not a prerequisite. The story is about two friends -- who withdrawn into their own private worlds. They are drawn into a conflict over photos of a Foreign Secretary in drag. The cross-dressing Secretary also wants the Prime Minister's job, which the photo will undermine. The editorial friend knows he has to pander the pictures to increase circulation of which he is editor. Conflict is just theorectical, because each character can only act as circumstances of each demands that theydo what they would obviously do. And, to tidy matters in the end, our two friends try to poison each other. Obviously, the plot is thin. So is the book, which is large print on less than 200 pages.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, Quick Read
Review: I felt the beginning of Amsterdam would turn me off from reading the remainder of the novel, but I'm glad I plugged along. McEwan's writing is what I would call very British, which to me means a stiffer voice than American writers, and it always takes me a bit of time to get used to British writing. The beginning starts off a bit slow and sort of throws the reader right into the story without much background, leaving the reader to figure out what's going on and why other characters don't like each other. Before I know it, however, I was already in the middle of the book and really enjoying it. The ending, which I will not give away, wasn't so much shocking as it was sad and in a way predictable, although we only know half the story before reading the ending. McEwan has a good sense of chapters and how to use them. He was flip flop between characters and situations quick enough to keep the ball rolling and to keep the plot interesting plus so that we get to learn more about the characters involved. I liked how the ending brought in two characters that McEwan didn't write about from their own perspective. It turns the story right around on us. Nice affect and not at all a bit jarring. I also like finding out what people thought about Linley since this perspective was never really shared with us before. I would definitely recommend!
Rating: 
Summary: Not TOO MUCH of a waste of time.
Review: I guess it must be the fact the I borrowed the copy that said this was a "Booker Prize" winner that kept me going on till the end. The book isn't wholly bad. The writing is elegant at times; when McEwan describes one of the characters (I can't remember the name anymore) on a train journey and a hike. But, other than that, I don't remember anything except the ending. THIS IS A SPOILER. The two characters are in Amsterdam and they both manage to lay their hands on some drugs and they poison each other's drinks. HOW silly is that? It's a total disappointment to have started off thinking hey this seems like a serious plot, and then McEwan goes and does something like that. It's too unbelievable, the ending. The characterisation become more and more naive and coerced towards the lame end. Thank goodness it was all so brief. Glad I didn't pay money for it. Oh, and I must add, why are the Booker Prize winners always such disappointments?
Rating:
Summary: A Beautifully Dark British Satire
Review: McEwan does a wonderful job portraying two very dark and self-absorbed characters. The book is a very funny satire of British culture (McEwan even takes a few shots at himself)and British people. All of the characters are seemingly horrible people, except for Molly who seems to tie the characters in the book together. McEwan uses over-exageration beautifully in this book. Although overall this was a very entertaining and amusing satire there were parts that were dull and grosly sexual in my opinion.
| 
