Transcription: A Novel Paperback – April 23, 2019

Full disclosure: I’ve read and loved everything Kate Atkinson has published, most especially, “A God in Ruins” which is firmly on my “All Time Favorites” list. My love of Atkinson’s novels is firmly based on these three reasons:1) Her writing is sublime; it’s a joy to read her novels, and she injects wit at every turn.2) Her characters are compelling, real, and unforgettable.3) Her story lines are propulsive, unique, and always take you somewhere new.So I knew I was going to like “Transcription”, her new novel revolving around MI5 spies during World War II. Our protagonist is Juliet Armstrong, and though it is not a first-person narration, we are still gifted with her internal thoughts and feelings through an omniscient narrator. Juliet (there are tons of Shakespearian references throughout the narrative, but if you don’t get them it won’t at all detract from your enjoyment, if you DO get them, it will enhance your experience!) is only 18 when she’s tapped by attractive and enigmatic, Officer Peregrine (Perry) Gibbon, to participate is a plot to trick, and neutralize, Fascists, and Nazi sympathizers living in London.True to Atkinson form, Juliet is an unforgettable character. She’s a facile liar and a sometimes thief, but you won’t fail to see her humanity and appreciate her pragmatism. We want the best for her, so when, after the war, she receives a threatening note, her paranoia rises and so does ours. Who would want to hurt our heroine? And why? This is where the Atkinson twists come in!Oh, and thanks to Juliet, you’ll never think of English idioms having to do with body parts the same way! “She cast her eye around the room (dreadful phrase)”

Transcription by Kate Atkinson is a different kind of spy novel, and also a bit confusing. Not because it covers two time periods – beginning of World War II and 1950, both in London – but because the writing style leaves so many questions. If you’re looking for a nice little summary at the end finishing off all loose ends of the plot, a la Agatha Christie or even JK Rowling, then you’ll be disappointed. If you rather enjoy something more akin to the style of John LeCarre that effortlessly carries you back to the atmosphere and political cross currents of England in 1940, and particularly if you like as your protagonist a woman who is not a seasoned spy but rather a quirky and guileless girl who nevertheless can be ruthless when it matters, then you may enjoy Transcription. It was a definitely a thought-provoking read. It didn’t leave you with satisfying answers about right and wrong, or good and evil, but rather illuminated the vast areas of gray in the world of spy craft. For me, the central theme of the book was human connection and loyalty vs patriotism. In a world where allegiances change on a dime depending on who is in power, who can you trust? Can you ever really trust anyone?But I also found some parts annoying. I enjoyed the first part of the storyline, the one taking place in 1940, where the main protagonist, Juliet Armstrong, is tasked with spying on and transcribing meetings of a group of Nazi sympathizers. And I liked the idea of the new intrigue Juliet finds herself in the middle of in 1950, when the Cold War is in full force and characters from her old spy days show up again in different and murky roles. However, I feel like this second plot line could have been explored better. It felt rushed, and a major revelation about Juliet herself comes only close to the very end. I was completely surprised by this and would have appreciated more of a trail of hints and foreshadowing by the author. When reading a spy novel, the reader likes to use clues and find out things on his or her own, or otherwise the element of surprise is too stark. It felt a little like learning at the end of a detective novel that the perpetrator was someone who was never even mentioned until that point. Part of me wants to go back and re-read the book to find out what I might have missed, but another part wants to move on to a better-written WWII spy novel. Istanbul Passage – or anything written by Joseph Kanon – comes to mind.Apart from all that, I quite enjoyed the humor throughout the story. Juliet Armstrong’s character is smart and witty, and her quirky thinking and word associations as well as powers of observation made my smile. Because of these bits of dry humor, Transcription was an entertaining read for me, even if the plot left me wishing for more.

Like many other reviewers, I am a HUGE Atkinson fan. I recently reread Life After Life and A God In Ruins (two of my all-time favs) before seeing Atkinson speak at a NYC event. So I am really disappointed to say I didn't feel Transcription measured up -- to her other WWII novels and also to her Body series (which I also devoured). She remains a very good writer, of course, and I am a fan of her many parenthetical asides and her deep knowledge of literature (although it felt more "show-offy" in this book than in the others). But mostly, it seemed half-finished to me; the kernel of an idea that never really jelled and didn't add up to a coherent story. Some specifics:-- I found Juliet annoying and also something of a cipher. Yes, she has Atkinson's trademark wit and acerbity, but she never felt like a fully developed character. Perhaps this is deliberate to make the later "surprises" reasonable, but for me, she was mostly an empty shell throughout the novel. Her "idealism" (important to later revelations) wasn't apparent in the early sections at all, and she came across as world-weary and cynical right from the start. This made her incredible naivete about sex, homosexuality and so on even more unbelievable than it already was, especially given her friendship with the clearly sophisticated Clarissa, who might have been an interesting counterpoint but isn't much of a character. In fact, as someone else noted, there are a plethora of people who come in and out of the novel and really have no role. It comes to seem like filler after a while.--Lots of tiny but odd details haunt the narrative, making it less credible overall. Do we really think Juliet is the one who'd have to identify the body of a duke's daughter? Maybe, but that seemed both odd and unnecessary since Clarissa was really not a presence in the book. Why would Juliet and Perry continue to address each other as "sir" and Miss after their "engagement." Could a smart girl like her really not get what his total lack of ardor meant, even in 1940. Why does she hold so many important facts to herself? About Godfrey meeting with the ultimate spymaster? About Alleyn asking her to spy on Godfrey? Yes, it's all clearly a viper's nest but did she have other choices? Better choices? Atkinson never gives us a clue to that. So the set-up seems very artificial, even if it's historically quite real.--Atkinson's ability to make the war and British life during the war real is unparalleled; I've never read better descriptions of the blitz than in Life After Life. Here, the war seems almost an odd after-thought. Other than her brief turn as "Iris" and her duties at Dolphin Square, the war doesn't really figure, as it did in the earlier novels. And the post-war "climate" is equally vague, which also contributes to some level of disbelief at the final revelations.--The themes of identity, loyalty, "truth," idealism, etc. are so on point to our times and yet somehow feel "light" and weak here. What we learn at the end doesn't really square with what we learn and see about Juliet at the beginning (part of that "cipher" problem). Treachery informs the novel in all ways; perhaps Atkinson meant the final surprise as coming full circle in playing with the notion of what people owe their conscience vs. their country. But it's sort of unclear (at least to me) whether Juliet did what she did after the war because she thought it was right, or because she was being blackmailed in some way from her war activities. We know from history that the British secret service was a nest of spies and even here it's not always clear who's on what side, especially when she is helped to escape England.--Much as I adore Atkinson's talent, even the writing here sometimes felt off. Very showy in some areas; oddly clunky in others. So much time is spent in Juliet's head, but even from the beginning, she is pretty withholding in her thoughts, which is why it's impossible to get a good fix on her. Not to mention that her 1940 spying activities don't paint her as much of a spy!I wish I could write a better review but I will remain an Atkinson fan and hope her next will return to the heights of all her prior work!

The cover of the book is very dusty and looks like very old stock

A great read.

Atkinson at her best! I loved the setting, the plot, the dialogues, which were full of humour and the characters portrayed in this novel. The research the author did about this period of history is amazing!

I remember thinking when the reviews came out on publication, "Ooh, that sounds interesting, I think I'd like that". I didn't read too much about it and (shamefully, you may think, waited until the price came down before ordering it on Kindle). Although I was aware of Kate Atkinson as a popular contemporary novelist, I'd never read anything by her so had absolutely no preconceptions. I found it grabbed my attention from the outset, and thought it delivered a very compelling view of wartime London and the security services. It was, I discovered at the end, exhaustively researched, and many characters were based on real people. I really liked the fact you had to concentrate, and was proud of picking up a number of clues (they were there, if you looked) which suggested to me quite early on where Juliet Armstrong's true sympathies lay. The jumping around (particularly towards the end of the book) was a bit of a challenge as you struggled to remember who was who, and I reread sections a couple of times to establish just this.The author cunningly encouraged us to like the protagonist, although Juliet's ability to inhabit other characters and her compulsion for breath taking lies (even when they weren't necessary) and a tendency to kleptomania, gave a clue as to her usefulness. In fact I found her a deeply unlikeable and untrustworthy character. Some of the novel’s Secret Service operatives clearly nodded towards the Soviet infiltrators, closet homosexuals and highly educated classicists who haunted the service and who are referenced by the author at the end.I liked the element of doubt introduced right at the beginning as to whether her (presumably fatal) accident was indeed that or intentional. I would be lying if I said I'd fully guessed the clever twist at the end, but thought it unlikely that our Secret agencies would bother taking out such a relatively minor player when they let Burgess (known to be a rampantly homosexual alcoholic, who was nevertheless not sacked for it), McLean, Philby, Blunt et al continue their treacherous lives (admittedly some fled to Russia). The Russians on the other hand do not take such a liberal view of being betrayed, as evidenced by a number of well documented incidents in which people who worked for them and betrayed them met (and continue to meet) spectacularly unpleasant ends. So, after the denouement I rather inclined towards the non-accident theory.The only part of the book where I really had to suspend my disbelief was her initial recruitment. Although MI5 did recruit a lot of very young women, they nearly all had knowledge of obscure countries, and/or excellent bilingual language skills or mathematical/cryptic abilities. Juliet is portrayed as being both extremely clever and extremely duplicitous, and right at the end of the book it is explained that her headmistress had recommended her directly to the man who was ultimately her nemesis. I found this a bit odd - either the headmistress had worked for the Secret Services (an Oxbridge graduate, presumably) or was a fellow traveller or both. The repeated phrase "they need girls like you" suggested to me that perhaps the headmistress knew more than was let on about the mysterious father (I made up a backstory in which he was killed in a bungled MI5 Op and they contributed towards Juliet's educational accomplishments) and/or that she'd noticed Miss Armstrong's compulsive lying and political tendencies. Either way, it was the only false note to me, but also added to the interesting mystery.As has been noted, if you wanted a cut and dried thriller, then this wasn't for you, but the collection of weird and wonderful characters, and the strong implication that the wrong set of traitors were being pursued (most of Mosley's supporters were rounded up pretty quickly) made for an interesting and atmospheric novel, which I devoured avidly. The bits written around the post war BBC were entertaining and amusing (and again, exhaustively referenced by the author). Which I suppose is why I’d probably give it 4.5 rather than 5 stars if I could – it’s another case of the modern novelists’ obsession with researching topics to death as the core of a novel, rather than relying on characters from the imagination/observation and invention for a plot.

OMG! As soon as i started to read this, I didn’t want it to end. Such a good read. She has such a witty turn of phrase.