The Cement Garden (original 1978; edition 1994)

This book was an unexpected read. I doubted what word to use to describe the experience, but unexpected covered it the best.

It is well written, kept my attention throughout the whole book. It doesn't have many pages, but still contains a lot of action / information. It is not a pleasant read, because it is a dark, at a certain point I'd even say controversial little book. And all I kept thinking while reading it is: when will the secret come out? When will they be exposed?

I'm glad I read it though, that I did not avoid it because of its darkness. ( )

I know this is blasphemy but this book seems to be an adult, literary equivalent to V.C. Andrews.

While reading it, I got the same sort of feeling of not being able to look away from a fast approaching train wreck, complete with many of the same elements - twisted parental/children and sibling/sibling relationships, incest, a twisted and macabre atmosphere and the lack of a real community.

It's definitely better written than V.C. Andrews. Despite the subject, the style is more smooth and dreamy rather than sensationalist. McEwan drags all sorts of symbolism into the story - the scent of Jack's hands, the dilapidated street, the cement garden itself. It lends the story a bit of depth that it wouldn't have had otherwise.

Maybe it's due to my illicit teenage reading of Andrews, but The Cement Garden wasn't nearly sordid enough to really shock or disturb me, and it's not something that's going to stick in my mind for long.

I think I'm always going to remember the stained glass windows and gold plated baby shoes of My Sweet Audrina, and who could forget the tar in the hair and the hidden playgrounds of The Flowers in the Attic? But there's no really powerful images in The Cement Garden that are going to linger in the same fashion. Perhaps the block of cement with their dead mother's body visible through the crack might, but it didn't have quite the same impact on me, in part because it didn't seem to have much of an impact on the characters.

Is the reader supposed to be upset that the children's 'haven' has been destroyed at the end of the novel? That seems to me to be what McEwan was going for - that 'normal' for some people isn't desired for everyone. But despite what I think his intentions are, I keep coming back to the metaphor of the cement garden. You might sit down and rest for a bit, but nothing can ever thrive there for long. ( )

I wouldn't say this book is disturbingly beautiful because it's nothing of "beautiful". But it was different, original, a good read.
The first part was dynamic and terrible. Four kids lose their parents and they have to live on their own
The second one started bad and ended up being good. The whole Derek thing was boring for me but it seemed necesary for the story, after all it's the main conflict
The ending was excellent, and I don't understand how some people are arguing about it. They say that McEwan left everything untied but I think the opposite! It's all knot there! ( )

After Julie, Jack, Sue, and Tom lose both of their parents they attempt to hold their family together. But the twisted siblings find that they are cracking at the seams as they all struggle with grief. This dark and twisted story just missed the mark for me. It quickly turned all incestuous and weird and the whole book felt like an awful dream. I found no redeeming elements and it was really disturbing. ( )

I am an enormous fan of Ian McEwan, so I am puzzled that an author of his stature and with his abililty to captivate his readers could have written this book. The subject matter is disturbing on so many levels. I read as much as I could without finding anything redeeming in content or characterization. Could this be the same author who wrote On Chesil Beach and Atonement? ( )