

While McEwanâs Enduring Love is impressively scholarly and contains moments of tense KO H N The reviewers of the Booker Prize winning novel, Amsterdam, were generally of the opinion, expressed by Daphne Merkin, that its author, Ian McEwan, fully deserved the prestigious prize, but that this was one of those special cases in which âthe right writer is tapped for the wrong bookâ, because it was his preceding novel, Enduring Love, that was âprobably his best novel to dateâ.1,2 Other reviewers were more dismissive of Amsterdam Richard Eder considered the âsatire ⦠ï¬imsyâ and âset up ⦠with a few pains too fewâ, while Nicholas Lezard felt that the euthanasia episode, which âgives the novella its title ⦠is a little corny but is a way of telling us not to take it too seriouslyâ.3 Because of this âsmart, synthetic endingâ that makes the two main characters âseem as cartoonish as they had hitherto been trueâ, Brooke Allen concluded that âthe book is ï¬awed, perhaps fatally soâ.4 Nor was David Malcolm, arguably the worldâs foremost expert on McEwan, particularly happy with the euthanasia ending.5 Early reviewers are sometimes wrong in their appraisals.


The Fivesquare Amsterdam of Ian McEwan The Fivesquare Amsterdam of Ian McEwan
