Ian McEwan, Amsterdam – with annotations

0

Scroll down to see how Ian McEwan has annotated this copy of his novel. The annotations are in text format at the bottom of the page

 

Ian McEwen – Amsterdam


Thanks to @SweetTooth_book for the link

 Available at the RDFRS Amazon store here

 

Annotations by Ian McEwan



 

Title page 'Subtitle in first draft was "The Spoiler" – given to me by Annalena, then given back for her to use for herfirst novel.'



 

Beneath dedication 'My Dutch publisher and his wife, my Amsterdam friends since 1973. Jaco published me in volume form (short stories) before the English edition was available.'



 

Flyleaf 'This novel was written in the months immediately following the completion of Enduring Love. As that novel was being published, I was correcting the proofs for this – a luxury I don't think I'll ever repeat.'



 

p.3 [on the 'former lovers of Molly Lane'] 'They loved her? Or they "belonged" to her? If the second, then Lane's? Both. Long exchange with Tim Garton Ash on this subject.'

Written By: The Guardian
continue to source article at guardian.co.uk

NO COMMENTS

  1. Why? to experience vicariously the egocentric self-absorbtion of a poor unknown who could use a hand up and toes the politically correct atheist/anti-islamist line? Well…ka-ching…of course. The KJV bible is annotated fiction too.

    • In reply to #1 by whiteraven:

      Why? to experience vicariously the egocentric self-absorbtion of a poor unknown who could use a hand up and toes the politically correct atheist/anti-islamist line? Well…ka-ching…of course. The KJV bible is annotated fiction too.

      Ian McEwan is my favourite author and definitely not a “poor unknown”, but I cannot see why this article has been included on this site. Am I missing something?

      • In reply to #4 by currerbell:

        In reply to #1 by whiteraven:

        Why? to experience vicariously the egocentric self-absorbtion of a poor unknown who could use a hand up and toes the politically correct atheist/anti-islamist line? Well…ka-ching…of course. The KJV bible is annotated fiction too.

        Ian McEwan is my favourite author…

        Isn’t it ironic that you didn’t realize I was being ironic? Finding out who McEwan is was prerequisite because there was no obvious reason to me why this book merited special attention (I lie. It’s easy to figure out but amusing to prove oneself right). Yes, you seem to be missing something but you’re probably starting to get warmer by now. If you’re a big fan then maybe you know who @SweetTooth_book is?

      • In reply to #4 by currerbell:

        In reply to #1 by whiteraven:

        Why? to experience vicariously the egocentric self-absorbtion of a poor unknown who could use a hand up and toes the politically correct atheist/anti-islamist line? Well…ka-ching…of course. The KJV bible is annotated fiction too.

        Ian McEwan is my favourite author…
        Sorry, I still can’t figure it out. I’ve read Sweet Tooth but that doesn’t seem to help me. Just dumb, I suppose.

    • In reply to #3 by justinesaracen:

      Why are we reading these annotations? What have they to do with science or atheism?

      Absolutely nothing. :D

      ….but don’t you rather like his handwriting and how he cleverly used the blank spaces on the pages to fit his notes in neatly rather than scribbling all over the page so it would be hard to read?

  2. I’ve read McEwan for as long as I’ve read Dawkins. Most recently I caught up with On Chesil Beach (the one after this). I thought it masterful. How the subtle stifling poison of a 1950s British culture could bring about a personal tragedy had powerful significance for me. All beautifully observed. I shall go read Amsterdam now.

    I hope its auction tomorrow benefiting English PEN (the world’s oldest human rights organisation) goes well.

    Should any here not be familiar with McEwan then his perfect farewell to Hitchens should be all the excuse needed for his presence here.

    • In reply to #8 by phil rimmer:

      I’ve read McEwan for as long as I’ve read Dawkins. Most recently I caught up with On Chesil Beach (the one after this). I thought it masterful. How the subtle stifling poison of a 1950s British culture could bring about a personal tragedy had powerful significance for me. All beautifully observed. I…

      I searched the site and got 5 hits for “McEwan” all dated 2013: (1) plugging this book, (2) plugs for The Unbelievers, 2/8 and 3/23, (1) ASU 3/30 “The Science of Storytelling, 4/2, (1) interview with participants in the 3/30 event in AZ, good fun, plug books. 3/30.

      It is a damn shame that the testamonial in The Guardian, 12/16/2011, you linked to Christopher Hitchens: ‘the consummate writer, the brilliant friend’, in which McEwan “writes of his close friend’s last weeks, and how his love of journalism and literature sustained him to the end” has not reached our attention before now. It was nice to read, since I watched the video of Fry’s tribute, personally gratifying to know that Hitchens’ wife and I had similar run-ins with a hospital over loved ones (though she faired better than I did). and free of plugs.

      Since that article had plenty of opportunity to be here and likely no chance of being rejected, and yet it did not appear, I’d reject it as justification for anything. It’s chivalrous of you to carry the favor of defenseless commercialism. After all, where would any of us be without it?

        • In reply to #12 by phil rimmer:

          In reply to #10 by whiteraven:

          In reply to #8 by phil rimmer:

          yet it did not appear

          It was gathered up here, at the old site. :)

          So it is, along with others. Too bad they didn’t carry it over. Too bad Search doesn’t work better. I’ll rephrase that last paragraph in a way I hope pleases you. :)

          Since that article is a nice tribute to Hitchens (and has a good photo of him if you crop out McEwan and Amis), it’s a shame it wasn’t re-posted to the new site along with the other tributes. I’d still reject it as justification for anything to do with this book advertisement. It’s chivalrous of you to carry the favor of defenseless commercialism. After all, where would any of us be without it?

          • In reply to #13 by whiteraven:

            I’d still reject it as justification for anything to do with this book advertisement.

            Its not a book advert, but a plug for the auctioning off of one hand annotated sample for a charitable cause, a good one too.

          • In reply to #14 by phil rimmer:

            In reply to #13 by whiteraven:

            I’d still reject it as justification for anything to do with this book advertisement.

            Its not a book advert, but a plug for the auctioning off of one hand annotated sample for a charitable cause, a good one too.

            Perhaps the charity aspect would clarify and make a story worth reading, but none of the three links for the story say anything at all about charity. I did my job and checked the references before I said anything. Thus far no other evidence has been offered and it’s not my obligation to imagine its existence and look for it. I assumed it was a new book but it’s (c) 1998.

            (1) Link at top goes to scribed.com, related to Guardian, need account to login.
            (2) Link at bottom goes to RDFRS Amazon $10.95,
            (3) Source at Guardian.

            I take it you’ll be following up with a report from the front lines? ;) Don’t bother, I’ll take your word on it.

Leave a Reply