Take a photo of a barcode or cover
![Saturday by Ian McEwan 4th (fourth) Edition [Paperback(2006)] by Ian McEwan](https://assets.thestorygraph.com/assets/placeholder-cover-a3ae92250eb3301e32dc3eabf8d50576c2f047dda89f6ee7cfa9a859cb1fd746.jpg)
3.48 AVERAGE
3.48 AVERAGE
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
McEwan's best demonstration of his writing style that I've yet read, but not his best plot. Found myself waiting for the big twist at the end which has been so typical of McEwan, but it never came.
A unique and well put together story. Despite it all taking course over one day, you get to know the characters and their world. Strangely, I felt like the main character, Henry Perowne, was one who I felt the least connected to.
The first third was slow and a bit confusing with the plane crash, protest going on, and Henry starting his day. The middle third with the accident and his visit to his mother's was more interesting and understandable, and I couldn't put the book down in the last third as the dinner party unfolds. People have complained about McEwan's wordiness, but I didn't find it too distracting. He definitely uses some SAT vocab words I don't know, but some of the medical jargon was logical considering Perowne's a neurosurgeon.
The first third was slow and a bit confusing with the plane crash, protest going on, and Henry starting his day. The middle third with the accident and his visit to his mother's was more interesting and understandable, and I couldn't put the book down in the last third as the dinner party unfolds. People have complained about McEwan's wordiness, but I didn't find it too distracting. He definitely uses some SAT vocab words I don't know, but some of the medical jargon was logical considering Perowne's a neurosurgeon.
challenging
dark
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
There were a lot of moments in this book I liked. I liked the descriptions of brain surgery. I liked the descriptions of the mother in the nursing home and the main character's conversations with her. And since a lot of the book was about neurosurgery and how the brain works, I was able to get through everything else. But I did not even understand the conflict at the heart of the book or the main character's feelings about it. He is threatened with physical violence and he uses his special knowledge and intelligence to defend himself and then he feels guilty about it? Why? Is this a guy thing? Since I didn't understand that, I couldn't understand anything that came after it. The characters kept apologizing -- absurdly -- for defending themselves and protecting their loved ones from thugs. I really don't know what I was supposed to learn from that except maybe that neurosurgeons and their children are overintellectualized and deserve to be beaten and maybe killed by thugs? At least the thugs weren't apologizing for anything. And I also, for the record, could not agree with the thought that much of what makes us human is coded in our inherited DNA which determines our capacities for work and success so social programs can never make much difference because poor people are just tragically doomed by their incapacities. Say what? Forget studies that have shown that inequalities in education and opportunity keep poor people down and that when those inequalities are addressed poor people are capable of great achievements too. Maybe they can even become neurosurgeons. I don't know if this was an exercise in creating a certain type of character that I wouldn't like much or if this reflected Ian McEwan's thoughtulations on things, but I found myself liking the author less after reading this book and I had found Atonement disturbing in a really satisfyingly thought provoking way.
I think the problem for me is that the main character (and McEwan?) sees life through the lens of a more determinist vision than I do. I can grant some determinism -- I am limited by whatever deficits I was born with. But I can struggle to improve myself and my life. I make real decisions that affect how I live, who I love, who I am. I am not just reduced to my DNA and brain structure. And while I understand that this determinist view is all the rage now, I personally don't like it. Similarly, the thugs chose to be thugs and I am sure that not everyone with their mental challenges are thugs. The determinist argument just struck me as strained and an excuse for everything. And I feel like this argument leads inevitably to the dangerous argument that the upper class has better brain structure than the poor and lower class. The book sort of went there I felt at the end.
And I really hope that he didn't intend the home invasion theme to be some kind of metaphor for the war in Iraq. Because I found the justifications for the war to be the weakest most sickening parts of the novel. The main character stays on the fence and, a complete coward, refuses to commit to any point of view about the war which he seems to think makes him impartial but which to me made him insufferable. Seriously if it hadn't been for the beautiful descriptions of brain surgery, I wouldn't have been able to read this at all.
I think the problem for me is that the main character (and McEwan?) sees life through the lens of a more determinist vision than I do. I can grant some determinism -- I am limited by whatever deficits I was born with. But I can struggle to improve myself and my life. I make real decisions that affect how I live, who I love, who I am. I am not just reduced to my DNA and brain structure. And while I understand that this determinist view is all the rage now, I personally don't like it. Similarly, the thugs chose to be thugs and I am sure that not everyone with their mental challenges are thugs. The determinist argument just struck me as strained and an excuse for everything. And I feel like this argument leads inevitably to the dangerous argument that the upper class has better brain structure than the poor and lower class. The book sort of went there I felt at the end.
And I really hope that he didn't intend the home invasion theme to be some kind of metaphor for the war in Iraq. Because I found the justifications for the war to be the weakest most sickening parts of the novel. The main character stays on the fence and, a complete coward, refuses to commit to any point of view about the war which he seems to think makes him impartial but which to me made him insufferable. Seriously if it hadn't been for the beautiful descriptions of brain surgery, I wouldn't have been able to read this at all.
So many people strongly dislike this book. I am at the opposite end, due to not only the brilliant writing and many nail-biting scenes, but also multiple areas of personal resonance.
I’ve spent plenty of time working and socializing and participating in neuroscience reading groups with high-powered doctors at the top of their cohorts. It was like a trip down memory lane to be in one’s head for a day, the focus, the skill, the competitiveness, the generosity.
Along the way the author writes so well about dealing with the news, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, about literature and different types of readers, and of intimacy with those who are so shy of it.
I’ve spent plenty of time working and socializing and participating in neuroscience reading groups with high-powered doctors at the top of their cohorts. It was like a trip down memory lane to be in one’s head for a day, the focus, the skill, the competitiveness, the generosity.
Along the way the author writes so well about dealing with the news, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, about literature and different types of readers, and of intimacy with those who are so shy of it.
Ian definitely knows how to stretch a moment just long enough to describe it perfectly. Or a day of the week.
A spoiler-y question:
And a spoiler-y comment:
A spoiler-y question:
Spoiler
Isn't it a bit weird that a doctor is allowed to operate on a patient while both are primary subjects in an ongoing criminal investigation?And a spoiler-y comment:
Spoiler
The family reunion scene was so intense that I left my imagination suggest to me that Baxter would reveal himself as the real father of Daisy's child.
An early candidate for favorite book of the year. I'd love to see this made into a movie but it's beyond me how they could translate the internal dialogue to the screen.