Kate Atkinson - Transcription

A dramatic story of WWII espionage, betrayal, and loyalty, by the #1 bestselling author of Life After Life.

In 1940, eighteen-year old Juliet Armstrong is reluctantly recruited into the world of espionage. Sent to an obscure department of MI5 tasked with monitoring the comings and goings of British Fascist sympathizers, she discovers the work to be by turns both tedious and terrifying. But after the war has ended, she presumes the events of those years have been relegated to the past forever.
Ten years later, now a radio producer at the BBC, Juliet is unexpectedly confronted by figures from her past. A different war is being fought now, on a different battleground, but Juliet finds herself once more under threat. A bill of reckoning is due, and she finally begins to realize that there is no action without consequence.
Transcription is a work of rare depth and texture, a bravura modern novel of extraordinary power, wit and empathy. It is a triumphant work of fiction from one of the best writers of our time.

Comment: In 2017 I've read another book by this author which was interesting but not enough to tempt me to try other things by the author. I probably would remain with this intention if I had not seen this Transcription available at the library, and that is the only reason I decided to give the author another go.

In this novel, the author tackles the WWII theme, focusing the story on Juliet, a young woman who starts working for MI5 as a stenographer. Her first mission involves spying on a group of people who have Fascist tendencies and might be conspiring to help the Germans. While part of the work seems boring and sometimes too repetitive, it also helps Juliet and those of her team to present some results. Ten years later, Juliet works for BBC but one day she sees her old mission leader and calls up to him in the street but he pretends he doesn't know her. Juliet then starts receiving threats and she figures it all might be connected to that mission, and what went wrong...

I think the idea of this novel is certainly intriguing, even though there are countless stories on WWII out there. I think the idea of focusing on Juliet and the small sphere in which she is interacting with only a few people was quite the tactic. I also like that the setting remains in the UK, so no foreign missions and the usual scenes we would have to see regarding that.

The story is actually told in three times: 1981 when Juliet is hit by a car and starts to reminisce on her active work years, then 1940 when the mission begins and also 1950, when Juliet decides to investigate who might be threatening her. The 1981 time line only serves to put a context on things and, in a way, it was both sad and frustrating because what little happens in the few pages set in that year has no way of changing.

The main action is divided between 1940 and 1950, a mere ten year difference, but what difference, between active war years and a moment were supposedly all is behind everyone. The 1940 section is certainly interesting, especially when I think about the recruitment of Juliet and the tasks asked of her, which seem pretty basic when she starts. She has the job of writing down the conversations they listen to in the apartment next door, where the people they are spying usually reunites. Juliet also does some spying of her own in the house of one of the targets and she is somehow involved in the disappearance of an innocent person, which affects her more than she imagined.

In 1950, when all those things are behind her - but not out of her memories - she leads a simple life as a BBC producer but everything gets complicated when she recognizes her old mission leader and then, suddenly, other familiar faces get in her path again. I think the small vibe of suspense was well achieved but I must say that, while the writing is competent, it wasn't always very appealing and Juliet came across as someone with principles and regrets, but her characterization felt rather poor. I suppose it might be intentional we don't have a larger than life heroine, but I didn't always empathize with her.

In fact, my biggest personal complaint is that in such a clever and witty story (the author often uses expressions, little comments and includes information which clearly demonstrate her knowledge and sharpness), it all seems a bit misused when the main character isn't more engaging nor when the plot is actually as basic as it ends up being. I always imagined the mystery of what happened and why is Juliet feeling chased now would be something bigger or more complex and, it turns out, things are actually a little less complicated. Not that this is bad, but I think there was some build up of expectations.

Portuguese cover

The author adds in a note at the end where she got her inspiration and I've found that explanation way more interesting than most of the plot. I think she wanted to keep things as close as possible to real life events but for the sake of fictionalizing, some things felt a little unbalanced. the characters weren't always easy to like, except perhaps two dogs which actually have quite an important role in the middle of all the mess the spies see themselves in. There were also a few scenes where Juliet thinks about wrong and right and how that isn't the same if war is ongoing... or is it?

I can understand why this was a winner for some readers and why not for others, and I feel I'm in the middle... this has good elements, the writing is very clever, but it wasn't as emotional perhaps, nor as purposeful as it could be, to make it feel even stronger to me. I think this means I won't run to look for more by this author but if something else by her is at the library again, I might try it as well.

Grade: 6/10

Kate Atkinson - Life After Life

During a snowstorm in England in 1910, a baby is born and dies before she can take her first breath.
During a snowstorm in England in 1910, the same baby is born and lives to tell the tale.
What if there were second chances? And third chances? In fact an infinite number of chances to live your life? Would you eventually be able to save the world from its own inevitable destiny? And would you even want to?
Life After Life follows Ursula Todd as she lives through the turbulent events of the last century again and again. With wit and compassion, Kate Atkinson finds warmth even in life’s bleakest moments, and shows an extraordinary ability to evoke the past. Here she is at her most profound and inventive, in a novel that celebrates the best and worst of ourselves.

Comment: I'm not the type of reader to go after all the bestsellers or the award winners out there but I do have a look at Goodreads readers' choices, usually at the end of the year. This book was the fiction winner for 2013 and I added it to my list because it had interesting reviews and apparently a different kind of structure. Recently, I finally managed to get to it.

This is a book where the structure seems to matter more than the plot itself. 

It's the story of Ursula, she is born in 1910 and she dies that same day. The next chapter of sorts shows her what happens when Ursula is reborn and this time survives. Throughout her life, Ursula is faced with many situations and in some cases, she ends up dying to only be reborn again and her life then changes in some aspects.

But being able to do things again, being able to have a second and third chances doesn't automatically mean she will only make good choices, does it? What about how that also influences somebody else's life?

The concept of this book is quite interesting, this idea of dying things again and again. In movies this has been done with more or less success but in a book it can be a bit more complicated. My issue with the concept is that Ursula dies and then is reborn again but obviously we don't go back to read the same things all over just with a different perspective. The author highlights some scenes and goes from there. This means we have what happened and then a new choice and a path from then on.

This does sound easy enough to follow and understand but the truth is I found is weird and more difficult because it's not always obvious Ursula dies and why aren't others aware of it? Besides, when she comes back, we immediately are taken to the scene that matters (like I said, to not repeat all again) but that sort of breaks the plot in parts which aren't always easy to get. I felt lost in several moments and I would always wonder: has Ursula's life been the exact same until that point? In a way, maybe so, after all she doesn't really remember her past lives but she feels things when it comes to the key choices. I just think it wasn't easy to maneuver even when each chapter has the year. All this aside, it's also taken into consideration the fact Ursula is a different person each time around, at least in her attitudes and personality. The idea is that specific moments in our life can and do change/influence us to act or not and that can be key but we can't go back in time to undo or redo everything so...

I suppose that if every time Ursula is reborn we could go chronologically through her life, things could make more sense in terms of her growing up and such. But we often have some of Ursula's new lives happening in years which come before some lives which Ursula lived after... it is very complicated to simply imagine.

Besides, plot and structure aside, Ursula herself wasn't always a character I cared about. I liked where things wee going in the first life she has as a grown up, it was poignant and emotional. But she comes back and starts being someone I didn't morally nor emotionally liked much, even recognizing it was just the way people probably behaved at the time.

If we were to know or feel something about a past life would we truly change ourselves so radically from what we used to be before? Tricky this question when it comes to Ursula, I think.

This is a very interesting story, interesting way of presenting it too. But despite being a large book, despite the things we obviously need to infer and those which are meant for us to simple accept at our own interpretation, I still think there are too many tings left in the air. This makes me feel both confused and annoyed because I can't understand if this was meant to be simply philosophical or maybe I just didn't read it well enough. 

It's a great story to be absorbed in but too confusing at the end to have made a stronger impression in me. Has someone else read who can explain it all better?

Grade: 6/10