This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1perlle
I read Saturday a few years ago and had a hard time deciding if I liked it or not. I sort of felt like I was missing something somewhere. Then yesterday I was listening to a podcast and something that was said really struck me. I think I know why I had that feeling now.
One of the participants said that while promoting his work, McEwan said that he was interested in the idea that "happiness writes white." Then the speaker goes on to explain what that means. "When you're happy there is nothing to say. Misery is the only raw material for literature. So McEwan was trying to prove that false."
So here is a book with a main character who is content to be materialistic, complacent enough not to worry about war, who loves being monogamous, and who is surrounded by family members who are artists. But they're not the stereotypical tortured artists; they are happy and successful.
In fact the only internal angst we see is Perowne's feeling that maybe he's not as good as the rest of his family because he is not an artist too. He's just a neurosurgeon. That seems to throw the art-as-struggle idea on its head further.
I thought others might find this interesting. It did change my view of the novel a bit, and I now like it better. But a piece of work should really be able to communicate on its own. And McEwan definitely didn't make this intention clear in any way through the book.
One of the participants said that while promoting his work, McEwan said that he was interested in the idea that "happiness writes white." Then the speaker goes on to explain what that means. "When you're happy there is nothing to say. Misery is the only raw material for literature. So McEwan was trying to prove that false."
So here is a book with a main character who is content to be materialistic, complacent enough not to worry about war, who loves being monogamous, and who is surrounded by family members who are artists. But they're not the stereotypical tortured artists; they are happy and successful.
In fact the only internal angst we see is Perowne's feeling that maybe he's not as good as the rest of his family because he is not an artist too. He's just a neurosurgeon. That seems to throw the art-as-struggle idea on its head further.
I thought others might find this interesting. It did change my view of the novel a bit, and I now like it better. But a piece of work should really be able to communicate on its own. And McEwan definitely didn't make this intention clear in any way through the book.
2Nickelini
That's interesting, Perle. McEwan certainly didn't make that theme clear, did he! I thought Saturday was a great read and I whizzed through it (as I tend to do with all his books for some reason). I was surprised to hear people at LT who hated the book or couldn't get through it. But it would be boring if we all liked the same things.
3perlle
I was also surprised by that. I didn't hate the book, but his reported statement made the work seem more worthwhile. I wonder if the esoteric nature was intended or accidental?
4jfetting
I'll weigh in as someone who hated Saturday. I hadn't heard McEwan's statement, or picked up on that theme. Knowing that he was trying to frame a novel around a "happy" character is interesting. To be honest, the reason I disliked the book so much is that I hated Perowne. To me, he was too complacent and too materialistic and just too self-satisfied. It's really hard for me to like a novel when I find the characters so off-putting, especially a novel so character-driven.
I suppose I don't think McEwan succeeded in what he tried to do - sure, he wrote literature about a man contented with his life. I'd argue that he didn't necessarily write good literature about such a person. Saturday really disappointed me, actually, because I've loved other books he wrote.
Like Nickelini said, it would be boring if we all liked the same things. So what, exactly, do people who liked Saturday like about it?
I suppose I don't think McEwan succeeded in what he tried to do - sure, he wrote literature about a man contented with his life. I'd argue that he didn't necessarily write good literature about such a person. Saturday really disappointed me, actually, because I've loved other books he wrote.
Like Nickelini said, it would be boring if we all liked the same things. So what, exactly, do people who liked Saturday like about it?
5Nickelini
I liked the main character, and his family, but mostly I found the story interesting. I also liked how everything happened in one day (what a day!).
6dczapka
I admired the book for its realism. Because, with the possible exception of a group of petty thieves having nothing better to do than to stalk a neurosurgeon and exact revenge on the same day, all of the things that occurred in the book could have happened, conceivably in 24+ hours.
My problem is that the realism, in my view, detracts a bit from the novel's impact. If McEwan's statement is to be taken as true (since we can ALWAYS question authorial intent...), then why is it that most people find the end of the novel -- or, perhaps even more specifically, the latter half of Chapter Four -- to be the strongest part of the novel? Because that section features conflict, awkwardness, and the potential for misery. It's the bursting of Perowne's bubble.
I find it useful to compare the squash match to the accident. The squash match, to me, is the more fascinating read: firstly because the match plays into his competitive nature, and losing threatens that "bubble"; secondly because both characters are removed from their "comfortable" roles and engage in both physical and emotional conflict. The accident scene, by contrast, plays perfectly into the assigned "roles" of each character, and is in fact deflated by Perowne's overthinking and insistence on analyzing the situation in order to continue along on his way as painlessly as possible.
Those are my own thoughts -- yours may differ, naturally -- but count me among the group who isn't convinced that even McEwan's interpretation saves what is, at its core, a somewhat flawed work.
My problem is that the realism, in my view, detracts a bit from the novel's impact. If McEwan's statement is to be taken as true (since we can ALWAYS question authorial intent...), then why is it that most people find the end of the novel -- or, perhaps even more specifically, the latter half of Chapter Four -- to be the strongest part of the novel? Because that section features conflict, awkwardness, and the potential for misery. It's the bursting of Perowne's bubble.
I find it useful to compare the squash match to the accident. The squash match, to me, is the more fascinating read: firstly because the match plays into his competitive nature, and losing threatens that "bubble"; secondly because both characters are removed from their "comfortable" roles and engage in both physical and emotional conflict. The accident scene, by contrast, plays perfectly into the assigned "roles" of each character, and is in fact deflated by Perowne's overthinking and insistence on analyzing the situation in order to continue along on his way as painlessly as possible.
Those are my own thoughts -- yours may differ, naturally -- but count me among the group who isn't convinced that even McEwan's interpretation saves what is, at its core, a somewhat flawed work.
7perlle
I liked the stream of consciousness aspect and how it was constrained to a single day. I also liked being in the head of Perowne because of who McEwan made him. By that, I mean, I often wonder about groups of people and what must be going through their heads. It was interesting to be inside the head of a conservative, materialistic--by all accounts--"successful" man.
