Atonement Author Ian McEwan Hates What You're Reading
We once had the pleasure of meeting Ian McEwan, the ever-more popular author of Atonement. (For the record, we will always favor his creepy classic, Enduring Love. A hot air balloon was never so memorable!) Mr. McEwan struck us as outrageously smart and outspoken (he’s been a staunch critic of the war on terror); he also had that impeccable grace the English seem to come by so easily. So perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise that Mr. McEwan hates what you’re reading right now: blogs.
The Literary Saloon points us to a recent interview with the author, from The New Republic, in which he makes it abundantly clear that those of us toiling in cyberspace are basically Neanderthals, at least when it comes to book criticism on the web.
TNR: Do you read any online reviews?
McEwan: I don't read the blogs much. I don't like the tone-the rather in-your-face road-rage quality of a lot of exchange on the Internet. I don't like the threads that come out of any given piece of journalism. It seems that when people know they can't be held accountable, when they don't have eye contact, it seems to bring out a rather nasty, truculent, aggressive edge that I think slightly doesn't belong in the world of book reviewing.
The full Q&A is here.
Not to split hairs, but I'm not sure it's accurate to characterize McEwan as a "staunch critic of the war on terror". I don't have the evidence in front of me or anything, so I could be wrong - I'd welcome any correctives from Frey or another commenter - but it's my understanding that while he's certainly no fan of Bush and Blair - and thoroughly disapproves of the way the war's been carried out thus far - (then again, who is/doesn't?) - McEwan's been very critical - in both his novel, Saturday, and, more explicitly, in interviews he did around the time that book was released - of the anti-war movement. (His problem, primarily - and again, I'm going on memory here, so I could be wrong - is with what he perceives as the anti-war movement's tacit defense of Saddam Hussein, whom McEwan considered worth getting rid of.) McEwan's also been very vocal in the press- just as his buddies Rushdie, Hitchens and Amis have been - about his defense of "Enlightenment values" (he recently came top Amis's aid in a dust-up regarding some insensitive comments the latter made about Arabs and Islamo-fascists) and the importance of stamping out terrorists who threaten them. As far as I can tell, McEwan is, at best, an "ambivalent" critic of the war on terror.