You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.46 AVERAGE
3.46 AVERAGE
I always love Atkinson's work, and though not my favorite of hers, this book had moments of language play that were wonderful.
Life After Life and its companion A God in Ruins are among my favourite novels, so I was anxious to read Atkinson’s latest book. Unfortunately, it proved not to be as masterly.
In 1940, 18-year-old Juliet Armstrong is recruited by the Secret Service. Her job is to transcribe recordings of meetings between British Nazi sympathizers and Godfrey Toby, a British spy posing as a Gestapo agent. Later, MI5 puts her out in the field, infiltrating another group of Hitler supporters. The novel then switches to 1950 when Juliet is a BBC producer, but her work during the war comes back to haunt her. She receives a note with a threat: “’You will pay for what you did’” (186). Who is threatening her and why does a former colleague refuse to admit knowing her?
The novel emphasizes how truth is lost in wartime. Juliet believes “that appearances were invariably deceptive” (188) and this belief is reinforced when she is told that “’The mark of a good agent is when you have no idea which side they’re on’” (116). Juliet lies easily when first interviewed for a position with Secret Security, but she is accepted anyway; her interviewer “knew everything about her – more than she knew herself – including every lie and half-truth she told him at the interview. It didn’t seem to matter. In fact, she suspected that it helped in a way” (37).
When first sent into the field and given a false identity, she is advised, “’And remember, if you’re going to tell a lie, tell a good one. . . . It can be a difficult concept, fabricating a life – the falsehoods and so on. Some people find it challenging to dissemble in this way.’” Juliet’s reaction is telling: “Not me, Juliet thought” (80). Looking back at the war, Juliet comments, “The war had made the world weary of facts” (178) because “People always said they wanted the truth, but really they were perfectly content with a facsimile” (185).
By the end of the war Juliet knows “she has moved away from [truth]” (19). The problem is that, after adopting so many identities during the war, she seems to have lost herself: “There had been other identities too, although she never owned up to them in public. And then there was Juliet Armstrong, of course, who some days seemed like the most fictitious of them all, despite being the ‘real’ Juliet. But then what constituted real? Wasn’t everything, even this life itself, just a game of deception” (259)?
One is left wondering how truthful Juliet is. There’s an episode with earrings that shows her to be untrustworthy. And ten years later, she continues to deceive. She admits to lying in her BBC interview and she destroys incriminating evidence to protect herself and a colleague: “It was not the first time she had destroyed evidence of wrong-doing and she supposed it wouldn’t be the last” (214). At the BBC, she rewrites children’s radio histories to enliven them, often leaving out details, so one cannot help but wonder if she is leaving out details about her life. Since her name is closely associated with a dramatic script, is Juliet playing a role? Of course, Juliet is not the only enigma. Juliet’s colleagues (Godfrey Toby, Peregrine Gibbons, Miles Merton) also remain largely unknown, as befits spies.
The problem is that it is difficult to emotionally connect with Juliet. At the beginning, she is so naïve. Her age explains her innocence, but surely she should have realized the truth about Perry much sooner. And throughout her wartime activity, she makes frivolous comments. She thinks of her role as an adventure, as she is told to do; though one incident makes her aware of the fatal consequences of her spying, her comments and interior dialogue suggest little true change in her attitude. Would someone having to clean up after a killing actually quote Shakespeare: “She would have to clean again. And Again. Out, damned spot” (284)? Something seems missing, perhaps some warmth in her personality? Juliet even refers to this: “The unfathomable hollow inside her would never be filled” (171) and “She sometimes wondered if there was some emptiness inside that she was trying to fill” (205).
There are wonderful touches of humour. Juliet’s thoughts during Perry’s courtship, for example, are hilarious. What is missing is tension; for a spy thriller there is little danger except in a couple of episodes. And because of the first chapter, the reader knows that Juliet survives. The pacing is also uneven; for long stretches, nothing happens. Though this shows spy work is often mundane, unlike what James Bond films might suggest, such plotting does little to maintain the reader’s interest.
The book has the literary allusions I love, quite a few surprises, and several layers: “’There can be many layers to a thing. Like the spectrum of light’” (312). Unfortunately, the book just didn’t resonate with me; it didn’t have the emotional impact of Atkinson’s other World War II novels. Juliet ends up feeling that people are often pawns in “someone else’s great game” (313) and in some ways I feel the reader is manipulated by how information is divulged and withheld. I do think, however, that I might re-read the book because, like Juliet misses and misconstrues details, I might also have done so. I guess I’d be a lousy spy!
Please check out my reader's blog (https://schatjesshelves.blogspot.com/) and follow me on Twitter (@DCYakabuski).
In 1940, 18-year-old Juliet Armstrong is recruited by the Secret Service. Her job is to transcribe recordings of meetings between British Nazi sympathizers and Godfrey Toby, a British spy posing as a Gestapo agent. Later, MI5 puts her out in the field, infiltrating another group of Hitler supporters. The novel then switches to 1950 when Juliet is a BBC producer, but her work during the war comes back to haunt her. She receives a note with a threat: “’You will pay for what you did’” (186). Who is threatening her and why does a former colleague refuse to admit knowing her?
The novel emphasizes how truth is lost in wartime. Juliet believes “that appearances were invariably deceptive” (188) and this belief is reinforced when she is told that “’The mark of a good agent is when you have no idea which side they’re on’” (116). Juliet lies easily when first interviewed for a position with Secret Security, but she is accepted anyway; her interviewer “knew everything about her – more than she knew herself – including every lie and half-truth she told him at the interview. It didn’t seem to matter. In fact, she suspected that it helped in a way” (37).
When first sent into the field and given a false identity, she is advised, “’And remember, if you’re going to tell a lie, tell a good one. . . . It can be a difficult concept, fabricating a life – the falsehoods and so on. Some people find it challenging to dissemble in this way.’” Juliet’s reaction is telling: “Not me, Juliet thought” (80). Looking back at the war, Juliet comments, “The war had made the world weary of facts” (178) because “People always said they wanted the truth, but really they were perfectly content with a facsimile” (185).
By the end of the war Juliet knows “she has moved away from [truth]” (19). The problem is that, after adopting so many identities during the war, she seems to have lost herself: “There had been other identities too, although she never owned up to them in public. And then there was Juliet Armstrong, of course, who some days seemed like the most fictitious of them all, despite being the ‘real’ Juliet. But then what constituted real? Wasn’t everything, even this life itself, just a game of deception” (259)?
One is left wondering how truthful Juliet is. There’s an episode with earrings that shows her to be untrustworthy. And ten years later, she continues to deceive. She admits to lying in her BBC interview and she destroys incriminating evidence to protect herself and a colleague: “It was not the first time she had destroyed evidence of wrong-doing and she supposed it wouldn’t be the last” (214). At the BBC, she rewrites children’s radio histories to enliven them, often leaving out details, so one cannot help but wonder if she is leaving out details about her life. Since her name is closely associated with a dramatic script, is Juliet playing a role? Of course, Juliet is not the only enigma. Juliet’s colleagues (Godfrey Toby, Peregrine Gibbons, Miles Merton) also remain largely unknown, as befits spies.
The problem is that it is difficult to emotionally connect with Juliet. At the beginning, she is so naïve. Her age explains her innocence, but surely she should have realized the truth about Perry much sooner. And throughout her wartime activity, she makes frivolous comments. She thinks of her role as an adventure, as she is told to do; though one incident makes her aware of the fatal consequences of her spying, her comments and interior dialogue suggest little true change in her attitude. Would someone having to clean up after a killing actually quote Shakespeare: “She would have to clean again. And Again. Out, damned spot” (284)? Something seems missing, perhaps some warmth in her personality? Juliet even refers to this: “The unfathomable hollow inside her would never be filled” (171) and “She sometimes wondered if there was some emptiness inside that she was trying to fill” (205).
There are wonderful touches of humour. Juliet’s thoughts during Perry’s courtship, for example, are hilarious. What is missing is tension; for a spy thriller there is little danger except in a couple of episodes. And because of the first chapter, the reader knows that Juliet survives. The pacing is also uneven; for long stretches, nothing happens. Though this shows spy work is often mundane, unlike what James Bond films might suggest, such plotting does little to maintain the reader’s interest.
The book has the literary allusions I love, quite a few surprises, and several layers: “’There can be many layers to a thing. Like the spectrum of light’” (312). Unfortunately, the book just didn’t resonate with me; it didn’t have the emotional impact of Atkinson’s other World War II novels. Juliet ends up feeling that people are often pawns in “someone else’s great game” (313) and in some ways I feel the reader is manipulated by how information is divulged and withheld. I do think, however, that I might re-read the book because, like Juliet misses and misconstrues details, I might also have done so. I guess I’d be a lousy spy!
Please check out my reader's blog (https://schatjesshelves.blogspot.com/) and follow me on Twitter (@DCYakabuski).
I love Kate Atkinson, so I was bound to enjoy this book. It dragged quite a bit, mostly because Juliet comes across as kind of ditzy for someone so introspective, but the last 1/3 came together in a very satisfying way. I always appreciate a really well-researched novel, so the Author's Note and bibliography really sealed the deal for me.
adventurous
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
At the end of the day, a quiet little thriller, with most of the thrills coming at you slowly. The book is a merry-go-round through the years, where you breeze past 1950, then find yourself in the London blitz, and then in the pre-war years, then back to the Blitz, and then 1950 again. Atkinson does (boldly) what so few authors could - she leaves you the trail of breadcrumbs, but then picks them back up before you've had a chance to see them. It might not be for another 60 pages (and back or forth five years) before you'll remember the notion of a breadcrumb when the plot demands it.
Solid writing, crisp but frustrating - as she no doubt intended it to be. A pea-souper when it has to be.
Solid writing, crisp but frustrating - as she no doubt intended it to be. A pea-souper when it has to be.
Transcription by Kate Atkinson, from the beginning, introduces a lot of characters other than the main character Juliet Armstrong, and I am not sure which ones will be important later and which ones I should remember. The book then also jumps in time and place, making it more difficult to keep the characters straight or invest in any of the side stories. Unfortunately, I find myself without a connection to any of the characters or the story itself, making it a really challenging read.
Read my complete review at http://www.memoriesfrombooks.com/2019/05/transcription.html
Reviewed for NetGalley
Read my complete review at http://www.memoriesfrombooks.com/2019/05/transcription.html
Reviewed for NetGalley
Read mostly in audio and finished with print copy. A little tricky keeping all the names and storylines straight when listening. Atkinson’s language is masterful and the story intriguing until the end.
The setting of the 1940s and 50s was well done and the writing was full of nice phrasing (I learnt some new words!). However this book is not fast paced at all apart from a couple of chapters at the end and just feels flat. I also thought the short excerpts of the typerwriter transcriptions were going to weave together to reveal something big.. A shame because the premise of espionage, world war 2 and strong female lead looked so promising.
I bought this book because I thought I had read this author before … turns out I was wrong, but I’m happy I was wrong! I love the way Kate writes and I will definitely be looking for more of her books. I will admit that at times this book was a bit challenging to determine who characters were or which timeframe we were in, but ultimately I enjoyed the fun twist at the end of this book and the journey I took to get there!