In honor of this Friday's release of the film adaptation of Atonement (and who is the sadistic bastard who scheduled it for the day as The Golden Compass?), we thought we'd reach back into the archives and revisit some of the original reactions back when the novel first appeared. Specifically, we have Frank Kermode in the London Review of Books, who wrote:
Ian McEwan’s new novel, which strikes me as easily his finest, has a frame that is properly hinged and jointed and apt for the conduct of the ‘march of action’, which James described as ‘the only thing that really, for me at least, will produire L’OEUVRE’. Not quite how McEwan would put it, perhaps, but still the substance of his method, especially if one adds a keen technical interest in another Jamesian obsession, the point of view. His central character is a 13-year-old girl called Briony, already a maker of stories and plays, and so already a writer of fictions that have only their own kind of truth and are dependent on fantasies which readers are invited to share, with whatever measure of scepticism or credulity they can muster.
And then there's Daniel Mendelsohn, writing for New York Magazine, who opined:
It isn't, in fact, until you get to the surprising coda of this ravishingly written book that you begin to see the beauty of McEwan's design -- and the meaning of his title. In 1999, Briony, a well-known author, returns to her childhood home for a family reunion. The climax of this occasion is the premiere, after so many years, of The Trials of Arabella -- whose plot, you now realize, influenced the confused girl's long-ago betrayal. But if fiction can destroy, it can also redeem. This is made clear by another piece of "creative" writing that you discover at the end of this book, one that combines truth and fiction in a way that is both shocking and satisfying; I can't reveal what this is, but trust me, Atonement's postmodern surprise ending is the perfect close to a book that explores, with beauty and rigor, the power of art and the limits of forgiveness. Briony Tallis may need to atone, but Ian McEwan has nothing to apologize for.
So who's going to the movies on Friday?
Am I the only one who thought that the first part of this book was utterly brilliant and the sections during the war were not at all bad, but that the ending was the cheapest kind of "Oh look let's make a statement about the redemptive power of fiction" cop-out? It actually made me take a dislike to Ian McEwan when previously I had admired his novels. This might just be me though - I felt the same way about that dreadful Life of Pi.
Posted by: Michael | December 05, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Five years later? My initial reaction to Atonement came last week.
Posted by: Anna Clark | December 05, 2007 at 07:14 AM
I saw the film at the Toronto International Film Festival. It's a tough book to adapt, but I don't think they could have done much better.
Posted by: Nav | December 05, 2007 at 03:59 PM
Atonement is my all time favorite book. What I remember was the review that said, "If God could write a novel" and, oh yeah, there was the one that said, "In 100 years it will still be read and considered a classic."
Yup, I'll be seeing the movie. Not sure exactly when at this point.
Posted by: Josephine Damian | December 06, 2007 at 06:40 AM
I'm not bragging, because I'm normally a moron when it comes to these things, but for some reason I wasn't surprised at all by the ending. I saw it coming. In fact, I thought the book would have slightly benefited from excluding it and leaving the reader to guess at it.
That said, it's my favorite novel. The prose is consistently perfect. And it's moving where McEwan can usually be creepy (but still brilliant).
I'm a movie buff, but whether I can stand to see one of my favorite novels brought to life with Keira Knightly is something I'm still asking myself.
Posted by: JMW | December 06, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Michael— I'm completely with you on your assessment of the book. I think the end was cheap, and the ploy wasn't not even original on top of it! I can't believe just about everyone fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Keira Knightly is similarly pretty, but overrated. A perfect match.
Posted by: sara | December 12, 2007 at 03:02 PM