Showing posts with label ian mcewan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ian mcewan. Show all posts

10 September 2013

SWEET TOOTH: Sometimes I swear these men are out to get me

-->
You know, it's funny, when I make my summer reading lists I don't often consider how all the books are related (apart from the most obvious connections). That LEAN IN and SWEET TOOTH sat next to each other on my list this year was just a coincidence and on their faces seemed to have nothing related. But the deeper Ian McEwan's 1970s spy chronicle delves into the more disorderly aspects of the espionage organization, the closer it resembled an example of an extremely sexist, dysfunctional workplace -- only one whose business is the business of state.

The spy in question, Serena Frome, is recruited from Cambridge to join MI5, after puttering around a little aimlessly with a math degree and a secret flighty penchant for books. A woman with little ambition other than to live in London rather than with her parents in their small village, Serena becomes involved with a professor who recommends her to a position at MI5, something she sees as fraught with excitement and mystery by the simple token of not being able to discuss her rather pedestrian filing and secretarial work. Then, unexpectedly, she is recruited for an operation called "Sweet Tooth," a sort of back-door propaganda program aimed at providing stipends to up-and-coming writers with anti-Communist leanings without them knowing that the government was behind it all.

Finally, some real spy stuff! Only, Serena's election for this program is primarily based on the fact that she is young, female and charming, the opposite of the cartoon MI5 agent. Serena herself doesn't think it will work as much as they do:
"I felt obliged to make some form of intelligent objection. ‘Won’t I be like your Mr. X, popping up with a checkbook? [The target] might run at the sight of me.’
"‘At the sight of you? I rather doubt it, my dear.’
"Again, low chuckles all around. I blushed and was annoyed. Nutting was smiling at me and I made myself smile back.”
If you're sensing a relationship beyond patronage, you are not wrong. Serena vets a Thomas Haley, a professor of no great fame toiling along on some short stories, and chooses him for the program. Then they embark on an affair, and things get really complicated.

Although Serena is trusted to run her own operation (or so she thinks), in the office she is given no favors from this designation; if anything her workload increases, because she is keeping tabs on Haley in addition to doing all the filing and paperwork. Her only male friend in the office drops her soon after and then comes back to give a big mansplainy speech about the business of spying because she has the nerve to be hurt that they hung out and he never mentioned he was engaged:
“’Are women really incapable of keeping their professional and private lives apart? I’m trying to help you, Serena. You’re not listening. Let me put it another way. In this work the line between what people imagine and what’s actually the case can get very blurred. In fact that line is a big gray space, big enough to get lost in. You imagine things—and you can make them come true. The ghosts become real. Am I making sense?’
“I didn’t think he was. I was on my feet with a clever retort ready, but he’d had enough of me. Before I could speak he said more quietly, ‘Best to go now. Just do your own work. Keep things simple.’”
Soon, Sweet Tooth consumes Serena's life; Haley is her only source of human interaction, after her best friend is let go from the agency (whose arc itself was really interesting and which I could've used more of) and she moves in with a bunch of unfriendly girls with seemingly "normal" jobs. Her roommates, after all, are just another group of people she risks discovery from.

SWEET TOOTH takes its time getting going but I was riveted from about 75 pages in, particularly at the contrast between the cloak-and-dagger spy work and the often dreary, sometimes hostile office environment. The feminist implications of her place in the agency, at a time when women were still relegated to the clerical side, bleed over into her work as Serena tries to read the expectations for her to succeed as an agent, knowing the odds are stacked against her. Of course because it's McEwan, you can expect a giant Whoa of a conclusion that you'll want to reread and a twist I found cruel but somehow fitting.

11 June 2013

$11.75


  • Amount, in USD, of New York Public Library fines I just paid off so as to move with a clear conscience. 
  • Last NYPL book I read: Ian McEwan's SWEET TOOTH, one of my summer picks (not what I was expecting at all! Hoping one of you has read it so we can get into a good discussion) 
  • Last branch visited: Muhlenberg Library on West 23rd. 
  • Favorite branches: Mulberry Street Library (Houston and Lafayette) and Jefferson Market Library (6th Ave. and 10th St.) (tie) 
  • First branch ever visited: Midmanhattan Library, W. 40th and 5th Ave. 

16 April 2010

New York Times in the tank for Doubleday

From the e-mail update that always arrives at the point of lowest hope on Friday afternoons:


How can you not want to read Ian McEwan's latest after seeing that hook? It's like a dare. The review itself is pretty splendid, although I was waiting for the appropriate "Ghost World" quotation that never arrived.

Also, I cropped it out, but right below this blurb was a muted Flash ad for something I want to read for non-dare-related reasons, David Lipsky's DFW book ALTHOUGH OF COURSE YOU END UP BECOMING YOURSELF.

30 January 2010

Amazon the publisher? Not quite.

Book publishers have feared Amazon would further cut into their business for years. But the truth is Ian McEwan didn't sign a deal with the site for exclusive e-book rights, as this article clearly wants you to believe -- he went to an indie e-book publisher who then turned around and got Amazon to double the royalties he was getting through his publisher on five titles (see which ones here). Still, it's a big deal because McEwan probably sought similarly favorable terms from his current publisher and wasn't able.

I'm not sure how this affects e-book versions of those five titles already on the market (if there were?), but I suspect it's easier to get this kind of deal if your book came out more than 10 years ago and has no mention of electronic publishing in its contract; the newest McEwan up for grabs in this lot is 1987's THE CHILD IN TIME. I didn't know that authors commonly get 25 percent on e-books, but as is pointed out in the London Times, publishers' overhead costs are much lower on those seeing as there's no there there.

I'd love to see a paper contrasting current e-book practices within publishing with the Jay-Z/ Live Nation deal of 2008, but I'd probably have to write it myself.

10 December 2009

Worst. Decade. Ever.

Is it time to stop celebrating everything the Noughties gave us? No, but the Guardian flips the script and asks for people's least favorite books of the past decade. There are some amazing zingers in the comments, like someone referring to "The Shite Runner" (Brits!), but to be fair a lot of books I love are coming up as well.

For me there's a real chasm between books I hated and books that simply weren't worth my time in retrospect. I know I just ripped on THE DA VINCI CODE, but when I read it I didn't turn every page thinking "God, why hast thou cursed us with this book?" (I'm Midwestern, not a Pilgrim.) It was like watching "The Rock" on TV; there were better things I could have been doing with my time than spending those two hours on the couch, but hey, I was mildly entertained, it gave me something to talk about with other people and after two hours it was over. (The "Da Vinci Code" movie, on the other hand, I regret every minute of, because I was expecting it to be funny-bad and it was just bad.)

This is a reminder to myself to do a full post of these, but let me just say, any article that calls Ian McEwan's ON CHESIL BEACH one of the worst books of the decade is crazy.

09 December 2007

Dearest Cecilia, the story can resume.


I'll be shocked if "Atonement" doesn't get nominated for best picture. The movie completely exceeded my expectations (which were pretty high to begin with) and, nine hours later, I'm still thinking about some of its arresting images and the mechanics of the plot.

Without giving anything away for those of you who haven't read the book, the movie begins in summer 1935 on a country estate in England. Thirteen-year-old Briony (played by newcomer Saoirse Ronan, who is incredible here) and her sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley, who surprised me and impressed me a lot) are trying to stay cool in the long afternoon before their older brother comes home for a visit. In the course of that afternoon, Briony, to steal a line used in the film, "sees something that she doesn't understand, but she thinks she does," the consequences of which will change her life, Cecilia's life, and the life of the family groundskeeper Robbie (James McAvoy), who once studied at Cambridge with Cecilia.

I thought this movie did a great job of adapting the book but went above and beyond the (impeccable) source material with arresting visuals (Briony in a white dress, creeping through a dark house), intricate camera work and the symphonic but never heavy-handed score by Dario Marianelli. My greatest fear going in was that this movie would hew very closely to the conventions of costume drama, and I'm happy to report that this was not the case. The costumes were beautiful, but they worked in service to the story. I've seen a few two-hour movies in the past year, but this is the first one for which I can say, there is not a shot, not a moment here that is wasted. I have to give credit for that to director Joe Wright, whose adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice" I liked but is working on a whole new level here.

I already can't wait to see "Atonement" again. If you've seen the movie, I'm leaving a few spoiler-ish notes in the comments, because there is so much about this movie I am burning to talk about. Hopefully it will expand to wide-release soon, so you all can see it.

Photo: NY Post movie blog