Atonement: Worth all the Praise

There are many academic articles which praise Ian McEwan for is novel Atonenment. Yet I wonder if these praises are made hastily? Ian McEwan's skillfulness and mastery of literary techinque as an author is evident in Atonement, these skills do not compensate for the lack of inspiration throughout the novel. It seems to me that despite symbolism, motifs, and themes such as atonement; if readers are unmotivated to continue reading a novel, the novel should be analysized to understand the disconnect between the praises of scholars and the complaints readers. In making my argument, I would first like to say that I understand that McEwan's Atonement is liked by many readers and I am aware that everyone has differing opinions as to what is enticing about a book. Having said this, I think that one of the reasons readers remain dissatisfied by Atonement is because of the miltitude of literary techniques that McEwan uses. It seems that practically every sentence in Atonement contains multiple interpretations and literary evidence such as symbolism to support the interepretation. The use of water, for example, contains many interepretations throughout the novel. When Lola is raped the water that she bathes in symbolizes cleansing and purity. When Robbie is in the war trying to come home, his inabilty to find water symbolizes a need to survive, as well as, a desire to survive. Multiple symbolizes and interpretations such as the one above throughout the novel, cause readers to become paralyzed in literary devices that McEwan utilizes. In one regard, McEwan should be commend because it is not often that readers recognize devices and the multiple layers of a novel; unless actively engaginng with the novel. On the other hand, Atonement contains so many devices that it prevents readers from reaching any conclusions about the novel onesoever. I find this troubling and a weakness in McEwan's masterpiece Atonement.