Anonymous (not verified) says:

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.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.