Ian McEwan - which one first?

"'He is a great writer' is just as subjective as, 'He is a crap writer.'"

Neither is subjective.

Do you think that he has received all these awards, nominations, etc because some people like his style?

I guess this begs the question: Do you think that there is no objective criteria by which books can be judged as good or bad?

Remus - We should be able to agree on something so simple.

"He is a bad/crap writer" or "He is a good writer" are not subjective remarks. Good or bad writing can be objectively assessed with characterisation, plot, insight, etc. Whether or not you like his style, Ian McEwan is one of the most widely acclaimed British writers. Calling his writing "crap" just makes you look bad.

Feel free to say "I don't like his writing" or "I hate his style" or whatever. That is your personal opinion. It is subjective. And you have every right to say your feelings about everything.

Loved them all except Atonement which I couldn't get through (not sure why, just didn't "click" with me......). Not sure I could stomach A Child in Time now though..... You could start with The Innocent? The Cement Garden definitely one of his more "out there" books (and one of his earliest I think?)

Yes, BigKid - 'He is a great writer' is just as subjective as, 'He is a crap writer.'

the collected stories book , I mean, First love last rites

We will never agree on this, Cote. You think he's great; I think he's crap. I think he's crap because he writes poorly and I maintain that, 'He writes poorly' is a subjective opinion based on what the reader does and doesn't like in a writer.

Now - haven't you got, 'Of Human Bondage' or something to get your head into?

:)

I haven't read his last books, but the collected stories is superb as is The comfort of strangers.

Atonement

Cote isn't the fact that he is a 'great writer' subjective opinion

I certainly don't agree with that

I can't bear his writing, and I have tried.

I really wouldn't bother.

Written well or written poorly = Assessment of the quality of writing = objective.

I didn't like it, I hated it, I felt it just radiates smugness and I can't take it = subjective.

You have every right to say what you feel, even if it's all negative about a great writer (subjective) but it looks a bit silly to say that a great writer writes "poorly".

i've read them all, and would start with The Cement Garden and Black Dogs.

Ian McEwan.

Poorly written is an opinion - there isn't a measure of writing quality, just like there isn't a measure of artistic merit for paintings. It HAS to be subjective.

Who is "Ian M"?

You don't like his writing style because you feel he is smug, which is perfectly fine. It is a subjective opinion. You don't have to like everyone's writing style.

However, "poorly written" is an objective assessment and in the case of Ian McEwan, is just not correct.

Cote - you've told people off for saying that about Ian M before. I agree that his books are quite poorly written, mainly because they radiate a sense of smugness: that must be to do with his writing style. In the same way, Wolf Hall got lots of critical acclaim but I still maintain that it is not very well written - what some may see as idiosyncracies (or indeed, as genius) others may view as inadequacies, or at least irritations. That doesn't make either view right (or wrong).

First love last rites! His short stories and first publications. Brilliantly weird. If you want novels, try The Cement Garden.

I agree with Boob actually - with the exception of A Child in Time. Mainly he can't write plausible women.

His female characters are woefully one-dimensional caricatures, and his plots sexist/misogynist. Chesil Beach was cringe worthy drivel, as was Amsterdam and Saturday.

Minky's reminded me of the name of the short stories - first love, last rites. Brilliant.

I wasn't so keen on Saturday, but I love all his early books - the cement garden, a child in time etc, and his short stories.

I think he's such a good writer, and his books are all so different.

When I was 13 my English teacher leant me a copy of first love last rites. (no idea why!). It gave me nightmares for months. Having said that I love his books now, enduring love is probably my favourite.

"I have read a few of his books, hoping that I just started with a bad one, but nope. They're all pretty poorly written."

So, this guy is basically one of the most acclaimed British writers ever, with nominations and awards falling on him left, right, and center like manna from the sky, but your professional opinion is that his books are... all pretty poorly written

I like your self-confidence, but dare say you are a bit wrong there

I loved Atonement. It's not heavy, exactly, but very moving. His early ones are really weird, The Cement Garden for instance - I felt grimy just reading it! Amsterdam is also very good.

Parts of Atonement are brilliant, the section in the hospital is some of the most memorable writing I've read. For me it's still my favourite Ian McEwan, I found Enduring Love unsatisfactory (but had been told by so many people it was fab that expectation was high!), didn't mind Saturday but it wore his research rather heavily I thought, The Innocent is not my kind of book (thriller) so didn't enjoy it, liked On Chesil Beach. I do like the way he writes so I think it depends on what the subject is for me.

Ugh - none of them. I've read four I iirc (Atonement, Enduring Love, The Cement Garden and A Child In Time). The only one that I thought was okay was The Cement Garden.

I loved Atonement - one of my favourite books.

Quite enjoyed Saturday.

Not that keen on On Chesil Beach.

Solar is on my to read list.