Not bad lj etiquette at all - people do it all the time. But...when you reply to old posts you do take the risk that the poster will either not see your response or will not respond. It's nothing personal of course, it's just that they've moved on and don't have time to respond or in some cases don't really remember what they were thinking at the time. I rarely respond to people who've responded to old posts of mine. And when I respond to people's old posts - they rarely respond to me either.
Regarding Atonement - I had more or less the same response you did to the characters. And while I think the book is well-written, I consider it over-rated. I've seen the "unreliable" point of view gimmick done before. And the concept of a writer rewriting his/her own history to benefit themselves is hardly new. So the gimmick did not blow my mind or thrill me. It sort of annoyed me. I don't like "gimmicks" in story-telling - I find them to be akin to a writer showing off, as opposed to knuckling down and telling a story. Also the problem with gimmicks is often they are at the deteriment of the characters and story. The book or film or show becomes all about the gimmick, with the writer tweaking things in order to fit his/her gimmick. It's a personal pet peeve, I think.
At any rate - when I figured out the gimmick, I remember thinking - "clever. But. so what" - tell me an interesting story, give me characters I can care about, some ambiguity, as opposed to a group of unlikable people with obvious motivations.
The writer - who is clearly a good writer, is also a very cold one who does not appear to like people very much and judges them harshly. He writes Briony in such a way that I found it impossible to care about her. McEwan is not a writer that I'll read again and I felt no compulsion to re-read Atonement or see the film.
My book club completely disagreed with me. (As did the online one - a bunch of folks on a fanboard I was on back in 2003-2004 went nutty over it too.) The offline one found Briony complex and sympathetic. She was, they said, a confused imaginative and somewhat jealous girl - who did a horrible thing, and was able to rationalize it. It wasn't until later, when she saw the consequences of that action that she tried to undo it but couldn't, so wrote her story as a means of handling the guilt.
I didn't see that. But they did. And from the previews I've seen of the film - I think that is the filmmaker's perspective on the story as well. The story I saw was a lot darker. And Briony - less redeemable or likable.
It's been a while since I've read it - but your description fits the one I gave a friend, who asked me about it - but made it clear she did not want to read it or see the movie - she just wanted to know what it was about.
Curious to see what you think of The Sparrow. That's another odd book - people either love it to pieces or really hate it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 01:55 am (UTC)Regarding Atonement - I had more or less the same response you did to the characters. And while I think the book is well-written, I consider it over-rated. I've seen the "unreliable" point of view gimmick done before. And the concept of a writer rewriting his/her own history to benefit themselves is hardly new. So the gimmick did not blow my mind or thrill me. It sort of annoyed me. I don't like "gimmicks" in story-telling - I find them to be akin to a writer showing off, as opposed to knuckling down and telling a story. Also the problem with gimmicks is often they are at the deteriment of the characters and story. The book or film or show becomes all about the gimmick, with the writer tweaking things in order to fit his/her gimmick. It's a personal pet peeve, I think.
At any rate - when I figured out the gimmick, I remember thinking - "clever. But. so what" - tell me an interesting story, give me characters I can care about, some ambiguity, as opposed to a group of unlikable people with obvious motivations.
The writer - who is clearly a good writer, is also a very cold one who does not appear to like people very much and judges them harshly. He writes Briony in such a way that I found it impossible to care about her. McEwan is not a writer that I'll read again and I felt no compulsion to re-read Atonement or see the film.
My book club completely disagreed with me. (As did the online one - a bunch of folks on a fanboard I was on back in 2003-2004 went nutty over it too.) The offline one found Briony complex and sympathetic. She was, they said, a confused imaginative and somewhat jealous girl - who did a horrible thing, and was able to rationalize it. It wasn't until later, when she saw the consequences of that action that she tried to undo it but couldn't, so wrote her story as a means of handling the guilt.
I didn't see that. But they did. And from the previews I've seen of the film - I think that is the filmmaker's perspective on the story as well. The story I saw was a lot darker. And Briony - less redeemable or likable.
It's been a while since I've read it - but your description fits the one I gave a friend, who asked me about it - but made it clear she did not want to read it or see the movie - she just wanted to know what it was about.
Curious to see what you think of The Sparrow.
That's another odd book - people either love it to pieces or really hate it.