Sweet Tooth

Sweet Tooth

3.5 87
by Ian McEwan

View All Available Formats & Editions

In this stunning new novel, Ian McEwan’s first female protagonist since Atonement is about to learn that espionage is the ultimate seduction.

Cambridge student Serena Frome’s beauty and intelligence make her the ideal recruit for MI5. The year is 1972. The Cold War is far from over. England’s legendary intelligence

…  See more details below


In this stunning new novel, Ian McEwan’s first female protagonist since Atonement is about to learn that espionage is the ultimate seduction.

Cambridge student Serena Frome’s beauty and intelligence make her the ideal recruit for MI5. The year is 1972. The Cold War is far from over. England’s legendary intelligence agency is determined to manipulate the cultural conversation by funding writers whose politics align with those of the government. The operation is code named “Sweet Tooth.”
Serena, a compulsive reader of novels, is the perfect candidate to infiltrate the literary circle of a promising young writer named Tom Haley. At first, she loves his stories. Then she begins to love the man. How long can she conceal her undercover life? To answer that question, Serena must abandon the first rule of espionage: trust no one.
Once again, Ian McEwan’s mastery dazzles us in this superbly deft and witty story of betrayal and intrigue, love and the invented self.

Read More

Editorial Reviews

The Observer
Sweet Tooth is playful…a great big beautiful Russian doll of a novel, and its construction—deft, tight, exhilaratingly immaculate—is a huge part of its pleasure. There are stories within stories, ideas within ideas, even images within images…Sweet Tooth is a comic novel and a novel of ideas, but, unlike so many of those, it also exerts a keen emotional pull.
—Julie Myerson
The Washington Post
Ian McEwan's delicious new novel provides all the pleasures one has come to expect of him: pervasive intelligence, broad and deep knowledge, elegant prose, subtle wit and, by no means least, a singularly agreeable element of surprise. In Sweet Tooth, as elsewhere in McEwan's fiction, things are not always what they seem to be, with the result that the reader is permitted to delight in the aforementioned pleasures while wondering all the while what, exactly, is going on.
—Jonathan Yardley
Publishers Weekly
McEwan goes for laughs in this cold war spoof in which Serena Frome, one time math whiz, struggles through Cambridge and graduates in 1972 with an embarrassing third. For reasons never satisfactorily explained, a professor and former MI5 operative recruits her as a spy. Serena’s soon in love, not for the last time in the story, no matter that he’s 54, long married and sickly, or that she’s 21, gorgeous, and in a relationship. She’s a voracious reader, and her familiarity with contemporary fiction earns her an assignment to persuade a writer with anti-Soviet leanings to abandon academia and write full-time, supported by funding whose source he can never know. Espionage fans won’t find much that’s credible, and fans of political farce might be surprised by a narrative less focused on lampooning MI5 than on mocking (mostly female) readers. Given the nonstop wisecracks, the book might be most satisfying if read as sheer camp. A twist confirms that the misogyny isn’t to be taken seriously, but Serena’s intellectual inferiority is a joke that takes too long to reach its punch line. McEwan devotees may hope that in his next novel he returns to characterizations deeper than the paper they’re printed on. Agent: The Georges Borchardt Literary Agency. (Nov.)
From the Publisher
Praise for Sweet Tooth:

"McEwan's most stylish and personal book to date ... The year's most intensely enjoyable novel."
The Daily Beast

"A tightly crafted, exquisitely executed page-turner — a post-modern hall of mirrors asking savvy questions about identity, all concealed in the immersive trappings of a Victorian novel complete with a marriage plot. There's such rich pleasure and vulnerability in McEwan's storytelling, such style and heart in his well-honed sentences."
USA Today

"Ian McEwan’s delicious new novel provides all the pleasures one has come to expect of him: pervasive intelligence, broad and deep knowledge, elegant prose, subtle wit and, by no means least, a singularly agreeable element of surprise."
Washington Post

"As usual McEwan's prose is effortlessly seductive."
The New York Times

"As entertaining as a very intelligent novel can be and vice versa ... Sweet Tooth is extremely clever in both the British and American senses (smart as well as amusingly tricky) and his most cheerful book by far."
—Kurt Andersen, The New York Times Book Review

"McEwan has pulled off something remarkable here: Sweet Tooth is a suspenseful plot-and-character-driven novel with an unexpected postmodern twist. It’s Jane Austen meets John Le Carré meets John Barth — not a combination that I imagine anyone has ever walked into a bookstore seeking. But it’s one whose delights turn out to be considerable."
The Boston Globe

"An engaging book that's as much suspenseful drama as it is romantic love story."

"Tricky and captivating ... This is a book you can think about for a long time, a book that lingers and disturbs, in a good way."
—Katie Roiphe, Slate

"With his new novel, Ian McEwan looks set to have his biggest success since 2001's Atonement, and deservedly so. Both books feature eloquent and convincing female narrator/protagonists and have the same sly concerns: the uses and misuses of the imagination ... A story set in a bitter climate, but one told with such poise and craft that the novel is, one has to say, ultimately a sweet read."
Star Tribune
"A superb novel ... told with Ian McEwan’s signature crystal-clear prose. Bravo!"
—The Buffalo News

"A subtly and sweetly subversive novel [that is a] masterful manipulation of the relationship(s) between fiction and truth ... Britain’s foremost living novelist has written a book as drily funny as it is thoughtful."
Kirkus Reviews, starred review

“This is a great big beautiful Russian doll of a novel, and its construction – deft, tight, exhilaratingly immaculate – is a huge part of its pleasure ... Sweet Tooth is a comic novel and a novel of ideas, but, unlike so many of those, it also exerts a keen emotional pull.”
—Julie Myerson, The Observer

"Thoroughly clever ... a sublime novel about novels, about writing them and reading them and the spying that goes on in doing both ... McEwan has spied on real life to write Sweet Tooth, and in reading it we are invited to spy on him ... Rich and enjoyable."
Financial Times

"A wisecracking thriller hightailing between love and betrayal, with serious counter-espionage credentials thrown in … This is ultimately a book about writing, wordplay and knowingness."
The Telegraph

“McEwan writes with his usual clinical precision, brilliantly evoking the London of dingy Camden flats, the three-day week and IRA atrocities. His assumption of a female persona is pitch-perfect.”
Daily Mail

“A disgraced spy, a failed mission, a ruined lover: Ian McEwan’s new novel, Sweet Tooth, opens at full tilt ... The novel’s pleasures are multiple and, as always with McEwan, they begin with the storytelling.”
Bloomberg Businessweek

“Sweet Tooth takes the expectations and tropes of the Cold War thriller and ratchets up the suspense ... A well-crafted pleasure to read, its smooth prose and slippery intelligence sliding down like cream.”
The Independent
“Gloriously readable and, at times, wickedly funny.”
Irish Times

"McEwan fans won’t be disappointed by Sweet Tooth, and newcomers to the author will be meeting him at the top of his game."
The Globe and Mail

Praise for Ian McEwan

“McEwan is one of the most gifted literary storytellers alive.”
—James Wood, The New Republic

“[McEwan’s] finely honed prose is a deep pleasure to experience.”
Chicago Sun-Times

“McEwan is in the first tier of novelists writing in English today . . . He has achieved a complete mastery of his craft.”
The New York Observer

Library Journal
How easily we are fooled, and how easily we fool ourselves. That's the sense we get when reading this latest from Booker Prize winner McEwan (Solar), set in the Cold War 1970s. Rather gorgeous Serena Frome ("rhymes with plume") attends Cambridge to study mathematics, though she'd rather be reading, because she's persuaded that women must prove themselves adept with numbers. She scrapes by with a third, meanwhile having an affair with a married history professor who secretly grooms her for the intelligence service and then dumps her. Drafted by MI5, she's on the lowest rung when she's asked to participate in a mission, codenamed Sweet Tooth, aimed at secretly funding writers whose views align with the government. Serena's target is Tom Haley, with whom she foolishly falls in love. Then he writes the grimmest, darkest postapocalyptic novel imaginable. VERDICT The writing is creamy smooth, the ultimate trap-within-a-trap pure gold, and the whole absolutely engrossing, but poor Serena. She's such a doof, and she's a bit condensed too (by both characters and author), which leaves a bitter taste no matter how good the novel. [See Prepub Alert, 5/4/12.]—Barbara Hoffert, Library Journal
The New York Times Book Review
…McEwan has always been a good old-fashioned teller of tales, and the suspense and surprises in this book are well engineered…Sweet Tooth is extremely clever in both the British and American senses (smart as well as amusingly tricky) and his most cheerful book by far.
—Kurt Andersen
Kirkus Reviews
A subtly and sweetly subversive novel which seems more characteristic of its author as it becomes increasingly multilayered and labyrinthine in its masterful manipulation of the relationship(s) between fiction and truth. Both the title and the tone make this initially seem to be an uncharacteristically light and playful novel from McEwan (Atonement, 2002, etc.). Its narrator is a woman recounting her early 20s, some four decades after the fact, when she was recruited by Britain's MI5 intelligence service to surreptitiously fund a young novelist who has shown some promise. After the two fall in love, inevitably, she must negotiate her divided loyalties, between the agency she serves and the author who has no idea that his work is being funded as an anti-Communist tool in the "soft Cold War." Beautiful (as she recognizes such a character in a novel must be) and Cambridge-educated, Serena Frome seems perfect for the assignment of soliciting writer Tom Haley because, as one of her superiors puts it, "you love literature, you love your country." The "Sweet Tooth" operation makes no attempt to control what its authors write and doesn't reveal to them exactly who is funding them, but provides financial support for writers who have shown some resistance to fashionable radicalism. Though Serena's reading tends toward "naive realism," favoring novels where she would be "looking for a version of myself, a heroine I could slip inside as one might a pair of favourite old shoes," the relationship between Tom's fiction and his character, as well as the parallels between the creative inventions his job demands and those of hers, illuminate the complexities of life and art for Serena and the reader as well. "In this work the line between what people imagine and what's actually the case can get very blurred. In fact that line is a big grey space, big enough to get lost in." The "work" being discussed is undercover intelligence, but it could just as easily be literature. Britain's foremost living novelist has written a book--often as drily funny as it is thoughtful--that somehow both subverts and fulfills every expectation its protagonist has for fiction.

Serena Frome is bright, blonde, beautiful, and just graduated from Cambridge. She is about to fall in love and about to be recruited to become a MI5 Cold War spy. And that's just the beginning of English writer Ian McEwan's sly romp about double lives, romance, and the subversive power of reading. A novel by the author of Solar and Chesil Beach already hailed by the British press as "playful, comic, preposterous even... a comic novel and a novel of ideas, but, unlike so many of those, it also exerts a keen emotional pull." Now in trade paperback and NOOK Book.

Read More

Product Details

Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
Publication date:
Sales rank:
Product dimensions:
6.70(w) x 9.30(h) x 1.20(d)

Read an Excerpt


My name is Serena Frome (rhymes with plume) and almost forty years ago I was sent on a secret mission for the British Security Service. I didn’t return safely. Within eighteen months of joining I was sacked, having disgraced myself and ruined my lover, though he certainly had a hand in his own undoing.

I won’t waste much time on my childhood and teenage years. I’m the daughter of an Anglican bishop and grew up with a sister in the cathedral precinct of a charming small city in the east of England. My home was genial, polished, orderly, book-filled. My parents liked each other well enough and loved me, and I them. My sister Lucy and I were a year and a half apart and though we fought shrilly during our adolescence, there was no lasting harm and we became closer in adult life. Our father’s belief in God was muted and reasonable, did not intrude much on our lives and was just sufficient to raise him smoothly through the Church hierarchy and install us in a comfortable Queen Anne house. It overlooked an enclosed garden with ancient herbaceous borders that were well known, and still are, to those who know about plants. So, all stable, enviable, idyllic even. We grew up inside a walled garden, with all the pleasures and limitations that implies.

The late sixties lightened but did not disrupt our existence. I never missed a day at my local grammar school unless I was ill. In my late teens there slipped over the garden wall some heavy petting, as they used to call it, experiments with tobacco, alcohol and a little hashish, rock and roll records, brighter colors and warmer relations all round. At seventeen my friends and I were timidly and delightedly rebellious, but we did our schoolwork, we memorized and disgorged the irregular verbs, the equations, the motives of fictional characters. We liked to think of ourselves as bad girls, but actually we were rather good. It pleased us, the general excitement in the air in 1969. It was inseparable from the expectation that soon it would be time to leave home for another education elsewhere. Nothing strange or terrible happened to me during my first eighteen years and that is why I’ll skip them.

Left to myself I would have chosen to do a lazy English degree at a provincial university far to the north or west of my home. I enjoyed reading novels. I went fast—I could get through two or three a week—and doing that for three years would have suited me just fine. But at the time I was considered something of a freak of nature—a girl who happened to have a talent for mathematics. I wasn’t interested in the subject, I took little pleasure in it, but I enjoyed being top, and getting there without much work. I knew the answers to questions before I even knew how I had got to them. While my friends struggled and calculated, I reached a solution by a set of floating steps that were partly visual, partly just a feeling for what was right. It was hard to explain how I knew what I knew. Obviously, an exam in maths was far less effort than one in English literature. And in my final year I was captain of the school chess team. You must exercise some historical imagination to understand what it meant for a girl in those times to travel to a neighboring school and knock from his perch some condescending smirking squit of a boy. However, maths and chess, along with hockey, pleated skirts and hymn-singing, I considered mere school stuff. I reckoned it was time to put away these childish things when I began to think about applying to university. But I reckoned without my mother.

She was the quintessence, or parody, of a vicar’s then a bishop’s wife—a formidable memory for parishioners’ names and faces and gripes, a way of sailing down a street in her Hermes scarf, a kindly but unbending manner with the daily and the gardener. Faultless charm on any social scale, in any key. How knowingly she could level with the tight-faced, chain-smoking women from the housing estates when they came for the Mothers and Babies Club in the crypt. How compellingly she read the Christmas Eve story to the Barnardos’ children gathered at her feet in our drawing room. With what natural authority she put the Archbishop of Canterbury at his ease when he came through once for tea and Jaffa cakes after blessing the restored cathedral font. Lucy and I were banished upstairs for the duration of his visit. All this—and here is the difficult part—combined with utter devotion and subordination to my father’s cause. She promoted him, served him, eased his way at every turn. From boxed socks and ironed surplice hanging in the wardrobe, to his dustless study, to the profoundest Saturday silence in the house when he wrote his sermon. All she demanded in return—my guess, of course—was that he love her or, at least, never leave her.

But what I hadn’t understood about my mother was that buried deep beneath this conventional exterior was the hardy little seed of a feminist. I’m sure that word never passed her lips, but it made no difference. Her certainty frightened me. She said it was my duty as a woman to go to Cambridge to study maths. As a woman? In those days, in our milieu, no one ever spoke like that. No woman did anything “as a woman.” She told me she would not permit me to waste my talent. I was to excel and become extraordinary. I must have a proper career in science or engineering or economics. She allowed herself the world-oyster cliche. It was unfair on my sister that I was both clever and beautiful when she was neither. It would compound the injustice if I failed to aim high. I didn’t follow the logic of this, but I said nothing. My mother told me she would never forgive me and she would never forgive herself if I went off to read English and became no more than a slightly better educated housewife than she was. I was in danger of wasting my life. Those were her words, and they represented an admission. This was the only time she expressed or implied dissatisfaction with her lot.

Then she enlisted my father—“the Bishop” was what my sister and I called him. When I came in from school one afternoon my mother told me he was waiting for me in his study. In my green blazer with its heraldic crest and emblazoned motto—Nisi Dominus Vanum (Without the Lord All Is in Vain)—I sulkily lolled in his clubbish leather armchair while he presided at his desk, shuffling papers, humming to himself as he ordered his thoughts. I thought he was about to rehearse for me the parable of the talents, but he took a surprising and practical line. He had made some inquiries. Cambridge was anxious to be seen to be “opening its gates to the modern egalitarian world.” With my burden of triple misfortune—a grammar school, a girl, an all-male subject—I was certain to get in. If, however, I applied to do English there (never my intention; the Bishop was always poor on detail) I would have a far harder time. Within a week my mother had spoken to my headmaster. Certain subject teachers were deployed and used all my parents’ arguments as well as some of their own, and of course I had to give way.

So I abandoned my ambition to read English at Durham or Aberystwyth, where I am sure I would have been happy, and went instead to Newnham College, Cambridge, to learn at my first tutorial, which took place at Trinity, what a mediocrity I was in mathematics. My Michaelmas term depressed me and I almost left. Gawky boys, unblessed by charm or other human attributes like empathy and generative grammar, cleverer cousins of the fools I had smashed at chess, leered as I struggled with concepts they took for granted. “Ah, the serene Miss Frome,” one tutor would exclaim sarcastically as I entered his room each Tuesday morning. “Serenissima. Blue-eyed one! Come and enlighten us!” It was obvious to my tutors and fellow students that I could not succeed precisely because I was a good-looking girl in a miniskirt, with blond hair curling past her shoulder blades. The truth was that I couldn’t succeed because I was like nearly all the rest of humanity—not much good at maths, not at this level. I did my best to transfer out to English or French or even anthropology, but no one wanted me. In those days the rules were tightly observed. To shorten a long, unhappy story, I stuck it out and by the end managed a third.

If I’ve rushed through my childhood and teenage years, then I’ll certainly condense my time as an undergraduate. I never went in a punt, with or without a wind‑up gramophone, or visited the Footlights—theater embarrasses me—or got myself arrested at the Garden House riots. But I lost my virginity in my first term, several times over it seemed, the general style being so wordless and clumsy, and had a pleasant succession of boyfriends, six or seven or eight over the nine terms, depending on your definitions of carnality. I made a handful of good friends from among the Newnham women. I played tennis and I read books. All thanks to my mother, I was studying the wrong subject, but I didn’t stop reading. I’d never read much poetry or any plays at school, but I think I had more pleasure out of novels than my university friends, who were obliged to sweat over weekly essays on Middlemarch or Vanity Fair. I raced through the same books, chatted about them perhaps, if there was someone around who could tolerate my base level of discourse, then I moved on. Reading was my way of not thinking about maths. More than that (or do I mean less?), it was my way of not thinking.

I’ve said I was fast. The Way We Live Now in four afternoons lying on my bed! I could take in a block of text or a whole paragraph in one visual gulp. It was a matter of letting my eyes and thoughts go soft, like wax, to take the impression fresh off the page. To the irritation of those around me, I’d turn a page every few seconds with an impatient snap of the wrist. My needs were simple. I didn’t bother much with themes or felicitous phrases and skipped fine descriptions of weather, landscapes and interiors. I wanted characters I could believe in, and I wanted to be made curious about what was to happen to them. Generally, I preferred people to be falling in and out of love, but I didn’t mind so much if they tried their hand at something else. It was vulgar to want it, but I liked someone to say “Marry me” by the end. Novels without female characters were a lifeless desert. Conrad was beyond my consideration, as were most stories by Kipling and Hemingway. Nor was I impressed by reputations. I read anything I saw lying around. Pulp fiction, great literature and everything in between—I gave them all the same rough treatment.

What famous novel pithily begins like this? The temperature hit ninety degrees the day she arrived. Isn’t it punchy? Don’t you know it? I caused amusement among my Newnham friends studying English when I told them that Valley of the Dolls was as good as anything Jane Austen ever wrote. They laughed, they teased me for months. And they hadn’t read a line of Susann’s work. But who cared? Who really minded about the unformed opinions of a failing mathematician? Not me, not my friends. To this extent at least I was free.

The matter of my undergraduate reading habits is not a digression. Those books delivered me to my career in intelligence. In my final year my friend Rona Kemp started up a weekly magazine called ¿Quis?. Such projects rose and fell by the dozen, but hers was ahead of its time with its high–low mix. Poetry and pop music, political theory and gossip, string quartets and student fashion, nouvelle vague and football. Ten years later the formula was everywhere. Rona may not have invented it but she was among the first to see its attractions. She went on to Vogue by way of the TLS and then to an incendiary rise and fall, starting new magazines in Manhattan and Rio. The double question marks in this, her first title, were an innovation that helped ensure a run of eleven issues. Remembering my Susann moment, she asked me to write a regular column, “What I Read Last Week.” My brief was to be “chatty and omnivorous.” Easy! I wrote as I talked, usually doing little more than summarizing the plots of the books I had just raced through, and, in conscious self-parody, I heightened the occasional verdict with a row of exclamation marks. My light-headed alliterative prose went down well. On a couple of occasions strangers approached me in the street to tell me so. Even my facetious maths tutor made a complimentary remark. It was the closest I ever came to a taste of that sweet and heady elixir, student fame.

I had written half a dozen jaunty pieces when something went wrong. Like many writers who come by a little success, I began to take myself too seriously. I was a girl with untutored tastes, I was an empty mind, ripe for a takeover. I was waiting, as they said in some of the novels I was reading, for Mr. Right to come along and sweep me off my feet. My Mr. Right was a stern Russian. I discovered an author and a subject and became an enthusiast. Suddenly I had a theme, and a mission to persuade. I began to indulge myself with lengthy rewrites. Instead of talking straight onto the page, I was doing second and then third drafts. In my modest view, my column had become a vital public service. I got up in the night to delete whole paragraphs and draw arrows and balloons across the pages. I went for important walks. I knew my popular appeal would dwindle, but I didn’t care. The dwindling proved my point, it was the heroic price I knew I must pay. The wrong people had been reading me. I didn’t care when Rona remonstrated. In fact, I felt vindicated. “This isn’t exactly chatty,” she said coolly as she handed back my copy in the Copper Kettle one afternoon. “This isn’t what we agreed.” She was right. My breeziness and exclamation marks had dissolved as anger and urgency narrowed my interests and destroyed my style.

My decline was initiated by the fifty minutes I spent with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich in the new translation by Gillon Aitken. I picked it up straight after finishing Ian Fleming’s Octopussy. The transition was harsh. I knew nothing of the Soviet labor camps and had never heard the word “gulag.” Growing up in a cathedral precinct, what did I know of the cruel absurdities of communism, of how brave men and women in bleak and remote penal colonies were reduced to thinking day by day of nothing else beyond their own survival? Hundreds of thousands transported to the Siberian wastes for fighting for their country in a foreign land, for having been a prisoner of war, for upsetting a party official, for being a party official, for wearing glasses, for being a Jew, a homosexual, a peasant who owned a cow, a poet. Who was speaking out for all this lost humanity? I had never troubled myself with politics before. I knew nothing of the arguments and disillusionment of an older generation. Nor had I heard of the “left opposition.” Beyond school, my education had been confined to some extra maths and piles of paperback novels. I was an innocent and my outrage was moral. I didn’t use, and hadn’t even heard, the word “totalitarianism.” I probably would have thought it had something to do with refusing a drink. I believed I was seeing through a veil, that I was breaking new ground as I filed dispatches from an obscure front.

Within a week I’d read Solzhenitsyn’s The First Circle. The title came from Dante. His first circle of hell was reserved for Greek philosophers and consisted, as it happened, of a pleasant walled garden surrounded by hellish suffering, a garden from which escape and access to paradise was forbidden. I made the enthusiast’s mistake of assuming that everyone shared my previous ignorance. My column became a harangue. Did smug Cambridge not know what had gone on, was still going on, three thousand miles to the east, had it not noticed the damage this failed utopia of food queues, awful clothes and restricted travel was doing to the human spirit? What was to be done?

¿Quis? tolerated four rounds of my anticommunism. My interests extended to Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, Nabokov’s Bend Sinister and that fine treatise by Milosz, The Captive Mind.  I was also the first person in the world to understand Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four. But my heart was always with my first love, Aleksandr. The forehead that rose like an Orthodox dome, the hillbilly pastor’s wedge of beard, the grim, gulag-conferred authority, his stubborn immunity to politicians. Even his religious convictions could not deter me. I forgave him when he said that men had forgotten God. He was God. Who could match him? Who could deny him his Nobel Prize? Gazing at his photograph, I wanted to be his lover. I would have served him as my mother did my father. Box his socks? I would have knelt to wash his feet. With my tongue!

In those days, dwelling on the iniquities of the Soviet system was routine for Western politicians  and editorials in most newspapers. In the context of student life and politics, it was just a little distasteful. If the CIA was against communism, there must be something to be said for it. Sections of the Labour Party still held a candle for the aging, square-jawed Kremlin brutes and their grisly project, still sang the Internationale at the annual conference, still dispatched students on goodwill exchanges. In the Cold War years of binary thinking, it would not do to find yourself agreeing about the Soviet Union with an American president waging war in Vietnam. But at that teatime rendezvous in the Copper Kettle, Rona, even then so polished, perfumed, precise, said it was not the politics of my column that troubled her. My sin was to be earnest. The next issue of her magazine didn’t carry my byline. My space was taken up by an interview with the Incredible String Band. And then ¿Quis? folded.

Read More

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Write a Review

and post it to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews >

Sweet Tooth 3.5 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 87 reviews.
Mike_Brandon More than 1 year ago
I am a huge Ian McEwan fan.  If you are a fan of McEwan, I think you will enjoy this book, and it address many of themes and topics addressed in Atonement (e.g., the relationship between reader and author relationship and the author's relationship with his or her fiction.  But , notwithstanding that I enjoyed this book very much, I found it to be a bit gimmicky and a much lesser work compared to Atonement.  A lot of the book's ambiguities only pay off at the very end of the book (and you may find yourself re-reading the first chapters immediately after finishing the last one.).
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
If you come to this novel expecting a spy thriller, you will be perplexed and disappointed. Readers who are familiar with McEwan, one of the greatest living English novelists, will find this delicious psychological puzzle and meditation on fiction, reality and creation, a joy. If you have never read his work before this is a wonderful place to start.
BringingPaperback More than 1 year ago
When I put Sweet Tooth on my Christmas list, I thought it was going to be a fast-paced novel. I wasn’t expecting action-packed, obviously (it's still Ian McEwan), but am I the only one who sees the words “secret mission” and clicks “add to cart”? That’s all I need to know. I’ll read it. I probably should’ve noticed, though, that “secret mission” was indeed in quotations even on the book jacket. But I was all, undercover! betrayal! intrigue! female spy! I read two chapters over Christmas break, got back to school, and four months later as I was packing up my dorm room, I found the book under my bed, untouched. I’m glad I picked it up again, because it’s definitely worth the read. Serena Frome is a smart, confused, independent girl who attracts the attention of many gentlemen callers, including, during her senior year at Cambridge, an older man involved with the British Security Service. It’s the Cold War era, the government is attempting to influence the cultural sphere, and that’s how Serena ends up on her quote-secret mission-end quote: to form a liason between the Security Service and unsuspecting writer Tom Haley (that’s where the romance and intrigue comes in). I’m not going to say anything else, because the best part of the novel is how it all unfolds. The only thing I didn’t like about Sweet Tooth was reading Tom Haley’s stories. Some of them are a little bit tedious, and (do I dare?) heavy-handed. But Ian McEwan knows how to end a novel, for sure, and sometimes a good ending makes it easy to forgive a few dull moments.
Cocoa_Koala More than 1 year ago
This book is quite extraordinary, and I would have loved to give it five stars. The story was interesting, the characters enticing, and the writing simply superb. Although many readers seem to have a problem with their lack of historical knowledge of situations in the story, this is no fault of the book; rather, it appears to be a personal problem. I had no prior knowledge of most subjects, since I have mostly only been taught American history up to this point, and I found no problem in my reading because of this- the story explained things well enough to understand all that was needed. The reason this story has failed to earn my last star is because, as some readers said, it was hard to "get into." However, once you do, it proves to be an amazing read. The final chapter's content made me unable to put the book down, and like another reviewer said, practically forced me to reread some parts found earlier in the novel. If you give this book a chance, and read it thoroughly to the end, no matter how long it takes, you shouldn't be disappointed.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Try as I may, I just can't get into this book. Too much thinking, not enough dialogue!
Brasseur More than 1 year ago
To begin, I am a real fan of McEwan's writing, especially the less gothic-style works (Saturday, Solar). I appreciate his beautiful language and often satirical tone. This novel kept me in suspense until the last two pages and provided an ending that I had not at all expected. My book group was slated to discuss this so I read it a second time and enjoyed it just as much --- this time looking closely at the texture and the back story of the Cold War. I cared less about these principal characters than I'd expect to in a work that I liked. However, as a semi-autobiographical work about a literature major coming of age in the early '70s, I found this novel utterly satisfying and intellectually stimulating.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I wasn't sure what to expect from this and was left pleasantly surprised. If you are a fan of his writing you will not be disappointed.
books57 More than 1 year ago
This was out book club choice and it was unanimous - none of us liked the book. We didn't understand the story line (was there one), nor the writing. The topics were scattered and the book just didn't make sense to all 10 of us. Bummer!
teach64 More than 1 year ago
Story was very dull, I was waiting for it to get exciting, first time in a long time I had to force myself to finish the book
NathanDPhillips More than 1 year ago
Not quite enough. This book is good. Placing it next to Atonement seems almost laughable. Atonement is amazing. This book: good. Unfortunately, this is the only word I can think to describe it.  Certainly, there are passages which are lyrically lovely. Some characters are enthralling. It was fun for me, someone who loves the cult of talented British writers (Amis, Hitchens, McEwan, Rushdie...), to see them in novelized form, but overall the book did not have the spark to lift it off the ground. 
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
This book assumes that the reader already has a certain level of understanding of British politics in the '70's. A little background info would have been helpful, as most of the time I have no idea what the aithor is referring to!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
This book is well-written and gets inside the main charater's head in detail, but she is boring, vain, and shallow. The book is not a thriller, it's more of a character sketch, but it is not intersting because the main character is not intersting. She seems to primarily think about sex. So, while I would label this a "good" book in many ways, I would not recommend it. I'm half-way through, and I'm abandoning it for a more interesting read. I enjoyed Saturday and Atonement, but the positive reviews this book got from some in the media makes me hesitate to give this author another chance.
Behindblueeyes2 More than 1 year ago
I utterly loved this novel. I've read a lot of McEwan and this was my favorite. I received it as a Christmas gift and plunged right in. Now I'm recommending it to everyone. Serena Frome is an incredible character--I wish McEwan would write a sequel!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Very dissapointed! I always look forward to reading Ian McEwans books. This one however, is a let down . The plot seems fragmented and boring. I'm struggling to finish it . Perhaps the last few chapterswill change my thoughts.. I hope so ......
carsam More than 1 year ago
Once again, Ian McEwan exams human nature in a way few others writers are capable of doing. He weaves a fascinating tale that takes us to an unexpected conclusion that, ultimately, is the only possible conclusion. Well done, Ian.
Readerfp More than 1 year ago
I usually enjoy McEwan, but I found the plot of this novel confusing, long and boring. I could hardly finish it.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Other_envious_writer More than 1 year ago
This is a spy story. That means that she (in this case) is recruited with lies, used for ulterior motives and finds out at the end that the person she least suspected is the biggest "villain." That's the script and almost everyone follows it, particularly if you're English. In this case, it's not even over anything particularly important, just a little social engineering subterfuge. She is the bait (hence the title) as much as the manipulator, "control" in the parlance. The only question you have to ask is if she is really in love with the man she is paying to write what MI5 views as philosophically correct (or is it 6, I can never keep them apart?) Maybe she is just trying to assuage her guilt. Still, there is that required surprise. The essay question of the week, class, then, is: Does she deserve what she gets (again, hence the title?)
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
KaybeeWI More than 1 year ago
Another great book by a fabulous author. Whilr Atonement remains my favorite of his books, this was well written.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
NewarkFan More than 1 year ago
Smooth writing like McEwan always gives, but not as good as his other novels and it has a tinge of over-self-interested autobiography in it.