To answer questions about
Transcription,
please sign up.
Marge Heger
Not at all. She is naive, of course. But, for her times, probably not remarkably so. I found her bright, funny and easy to believe in. She lived in an age when there is so much to be angered by and it's far scarier than ours. The are parallels that ice this cake. I loved Juliet. I love all of her novels. This is one of the best.
Janet Palmer
Count me in!!! I'm not even sure what was going on in parts of the book. Too many characters, too many time jumps that didn't flow. Ms. Armstrong seemed a lot older than 18 at times but other times seemed like she was 11.... Loved Life after Life, this book, not so much.
Ed Bernard
Well ... kind of, but not really. Her prissy obtuseness is part of why the whole thing ultimately makes sense (no spoilers from me), though it was annoying at times. What redeemed it for me as a reader was its humor -- laughed out loud several times at her puns and wordplay. Also, the literary references were fun. The only part of her that didn't ring true at all, ever, for me was her inability to grasp how Perry leaned. I mean, I know she's young and it was a different time and all, but c'mon dear.
Jane
Funny - seems that everyone who dislikes this book enjoyed "Life after Life." I've read all Atkinson's novels, and enjoyed every one EXCEPT "Life after Life," which struck me as repetitive, lengthy, and pointless. And I couldn't put "Transcription" down - the humor, the mystery, the tension near the end. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
Keely
It didn't take me that long.
Anne Brown
Absolutely! Very disappointing book.
Louisa
Oh, man! I’m glad to see my opinion is shared. I was beginning to think that my dislike for Transcription is shared. Unfortunately I kept plodding through to the end in hope that something, anything, would make me feel that I haven’t been wasting my time. I love the image of a large trout flung across Juliet’s face!
Alice
Nope. I liked her. She had the British snarky-ness that I love. I loved her humor.
Susan Ferguson
Me too! I loved Life After Life (my first Atkinson book so jumped on this book as soon as it was released) I enjoyed the intrigue and the twists. Ms. Atkinson is a great writer and her prose can be sublime, but she didn't win me over with Miss Armstrong. I understand that she's presented as an enigma, naive yet calculating. But she was completely unsympathetic as a character so that hampered my enjoyment of the story.
Nancyann
Count me OUT. I loved Juliet's sarcastic wit and found the conversations spot on. Transcription is one of the best books I've read this year.
Linda
I'm on page 48 and popped in to GoodReads to see if it was worth continuing on. I have no idea of what's going on in the book---the liner notes explained it to me, but I'm lost in the book. Heading to the fish counter....
LindaLH
Long before 70% (why did it take you so long?)
L. Dawson
Yes, but way before that. She is annoying, and all those asides about words and phrases, sheesh! No wonder she's still all alone in 1950, no friends even. Who would want to befriend her? She's snarky and judgmental and incredibly insipid. The book is boring, if a book about wartime London can be boring. All that BBC stuff, snore. There are so many characters, I lost track of who anybody was. By the time she was accosted by Nelly Vargas about Lily, I had no idea what she was talking about! Her editor must have been high the day s/he read the manuscript.
Sarah D.
Found it boring and annoying. I didn't find the dialogue, word play, or musings particularly clever or interesting, and the constant little asides interfered with the plot, such as it was. I actually didn't mind Juliet being cold-hearted -- she's a character in a novel! -- but she was weirdly knowledgeable sometimes for an 18 year old, i.e., her views on the war. It was odd the way Atkinson felt she had to mention how bad anti-Semitism is just about every time she mentioned it, rather than assume that her readers were with her. I also thought some of Juliet's decisions were not believable: blowing her own cover at least twice when she didn't have to. Why? And the end section was too bizarre and disjointed to be interesting.
I loved "A God in Ruins," so was looking forward to another beautifully written, tightly plotted, insightful novel, and got this dog's breakfast (apologies to dogs) instead. I won't give up on Atkinson yet, but my faith in her has dropped precipitously.
I loved "A God in Ruins," so was looking forward to another beautifully written, tightly plotted, insightful novel, and got this dog's breakfast (apologies to dogs) instead. I won't give up on Atkinson yet, but my faith in her has dropped precipitously.
Robin J
I didn't last that long -- one third through. Bored beyond belief and while the dialogue is sometimes, droll, who cares? The writing isn't particularly beautiful nor are the plot nor characters that interesting -- though Ms. Armstrong appears to find them so. Very disappointing.
Bonita Braun
Me too. Oops! I meant I also wanted to slap Juliet. I guess her cluelessness was her guise. I did LOVE “Life after Life” and “A God in Ruins”.
Kay M Hahn
I read the requisite 24 pages (100 minus my age...) and gave up. Dipped in a few other pages, but too, too something. Off to find a large trout.
Diane
Me too! Atkinson's clever smart cracks coming out of her mouth wear a bit thin during the 1950s section.
Sarah
If you make that 10% I agree wholeheartedly.
Della Scott
This answer contains spoilers…
(view spoiler)
Mark
Didn't get that far...I found it a bit hard to keep picking it up.
Louise Culmer
I did wonder whether the Secret Service would have employed someone quite so naive. But it was the handbag incident that puzzled me - wouldn’t her cover have been blown after that? But it doesn’t seem to be.
Karen
Nope. I liked her. A little naive in some ways, but I liked her non-compliant spirit and her way of diving right into whatever was happening. In spite of her ambivalence toward spying, I think she was probably well suited to it.
Chris Miller
I only made it to page 96.
Jean Schafer
I started off enjoying it, but all that middle part about her career at the BBC, when all I wanted to do was find out why people from her past were appearing (no spoilers), then I couldn't wait for it to end! Loved all Kate other books!
Koeeoaddi
Indeed.
Camille Olcese
I almost stopped listening to the audio book because I got so tired of her compliance. But I soldiered on and was mildly rewarded. I don't know what the point is of her mental dithering (this word rhymes with that word) because it didn't reveal anything important about her personality, unless it was just that she's boring. But I did like the way she lied habitually, even when there was no purpose to the lie. I wish I could do that.
Stef Rozitis
Nope. She's brilliant. Most of the people around her irritated me but she managed to find little sneaky ways to preserve her agency
Pep
Maybe, but more importantly I wouldn't have wanted her as a mother; I feel extremely sorry for Matteo, who, it seems, is doomed to suffer unhappily from an Oedipus Complex.
D.B. Borton
I sympathize. Later on she develops a backbone, and we don't really see it develop, in part perhaps because information is withheld from us. Still, I loved the novel, loved the milieu, loved the concept and the writing. Didn't much like the ending.
Diana
The cruelty and manipulation of her character left me sick. I couldn't finish the book.
Jen Mactaggart
Was that the point where she removed the pearls from her friend's dead body? If so, yes. Though despite her kleptomania I found her endearing.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more