atonement.

I just finished reading the book "Atonement" by Ian McEwan. The book was a bit of a difficult read for me. I'm typically one of those people who picks up a good book and can't put it down until I'm done reading it. But this book, I picked up having already seen the movie. I thought the book would be great since I was impressed by the movie.

Without the final section "London 1999", (that I thought wasn't even part of the story) this book would be okay but nothing to seek out. Missing the last section would definitely make the book just another book. The author almost tries to tell the story as a biography/ novel. I'm not a big fan of that technique. I had forgotten how the movie ended so it was a nice surprise to read it again.

The concept of atonement is all about amending after an offense. The main character never gets there. The title seems superfluous. It could have just as easily been titled "Betrayal" or "Young Child who is nosy and sees things she shouldn't and makes up stories because she doesn't understand." The former is probably a better choice. :)

I do think that the concept of atonement is lost on most people except the religious who get beaten over the head with "being atoned by Christ." People should think about atonement more. Too many people are too self-righteous or proud to make things right again. Or it's half-hearted. Apologies like "I'm sorry for everything." It's the crappiest apology next to "I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt." Because you can't be sorry for everything. Blanket apologies do not mend fences. Neither does the "if I hurt your feelings" clause. There's no purpose for the clause except to preserve oneself. And to be a selfish ass.

But yeah, the movie might be better than the book for this one. The movie has Kiera Knightley and James McAvoy. The book spends more time gently, slowly pushing the plot forward. There's too much time spend in the battlefield and too little time spend on wrapping up the loose ends. Oh well. That's my thoughts. Ciao for now.