Brian Plunkett reviewed What We Can Know by Ian McEwan
What We Can Know - 5 Stars
5 stars
Very well-written, entertaining and thought-provoking. I really enjoyed the focus on Tom, a scholar about 100 years in the dystopian future, who is researching a lost poem and also trying to teach uninterested students about our world. His appreciation of the past (our present) is fun to experience, and it provides a great perspective. For example: "I prefer teaching the post-2015 period, when social media were beginning to be drawn into the currency of private lives, when waves of fantastical or malevolent or silly rumours began to shape the nature not only of politics but of human understanding. Fascinating!"
And I loved a lot of the writing. There's a description of Tom trying to access a container and get it open, using not quite the right tools, and it reminded me of so many home projects I've done over the years. The effort, anticipation and frustration are captured perfectly.
…Very well-written, entertaining and thought-provoking. I really enjoyed the focus on Tom, a scholar about 100 years in the dystopian future, who is researching a lost poem and also trying to teach uninterested students about our world. His appreciation of the past (our present) is fun to experience, and it provides a great perspective. For example: "I prefer teaching the post-2015 period, when social media were beginning to be drawn into the currency of private lives, when waves of fantastical or malevolent or silly rumours began to shape the nature not only of politics but of human understanding. Fascinating!"
And I loved a lot of the writing. There's a description of Tom trying to access a container and get it open, using not quite the right tools, and it reminded me of so many home projects I've done over the years. The effort, anticipation and frustration are captured perfectly.
The first part was funnier and more thrilling than the second part, but still it was great overall. And as for the title, what we can know is ... hard to say. Even things that people write in their journals may be false or misleading. And when the record isn't clear, Tom struggles with how to proceed: "Surely it was permissible to make educated guesses about the subjective states and lines of thought of people who had died a hundred years ago. Perhaps it was not."
