The last Michael Frayn novel I read was Skios and I spent the book feeling like I was reading a movie pitch (albeit a long one). Maybe it would have made a good movie, but it failed as a book, perhaps because of these conflicted purposes.

The other day I discovered, sitting in the bookshelves, unread as yet, Now You Know. Written (or rather, published) twenty years before Skios, and shortly after the splendid A Landing on the Sun, I had great expectations. Which were unmet.

Why did you start doing this, Mr Frayn? Having your cake and eating it. Writing novels with an eye to the stage? Don't write novels if that's your plan. I read this, thinking just like Skios, that it was the detailed plan for a play. A play this time, not a movie, which was more the sense I got with Skios, maybe because it had an exotic location. This time felt wrong because the characters spoke in some way characters speak in a play and not in a novel. I can't say exactly what that means, it's just my intuitive reaction. I kept seeing some stalwart of English TV playing the main character. I kept wanting to speak his lines out loud - see, lines. That's how it felt. And at the same time, none of the characters took form in my mind's eye the way they should in a book. It's like I need to see the play in order to flesh them out.

rest here: https://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2018/07/01/now-you-know-by-michael-f... ( )

The last Michael Frayn novel I read was Skios and I spent the book feeling like I was reading a movie pitch (albeit a long one). Maybe it would have made a good movie, but it failed as a book, perhaps because of these conflicted purposes.

The other day I discovered, sitting in the bookshelves, unread as yet, Now You Know. Written (or rather, published) twenty years before Skios, and shortly after the splendid A Landing on the Sun, I had great expectations. Which were unmet.

Why did you start doing this, Mr Frayn? Having your cake and eating it. Writing novels with an eye to the stage? Don't write novels if that's your plan. I read this, thinking just like Skios, that it was the detailed plan for a play. A play this time, not a movie, which was more the sense I got with Skios, maybe because it had an exotic location. This time felt wrong because the characters spoke in some way characters speak in a play and not in a novel. I can't say exactly what that means, it's just my intuitive reaction. I kept seeing some stalwart of English TV playing the main character. I kept wanting to speak his lines out loud - see, lines. That's how it felt. And at the same time, none of the characters took form in my mind's eye the way they should in a book. It's like I need to see the play in order to flesh them out.

rest here: https://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2018/07/01/now-you-know-by-michael-f... ( )

The last Michael Frayn novel I read was Skios and I spent the book feeling like I was reading a movie pitch (albeit a long one). Maybe it would have made a good movie, but it failed as a book, perhaps because of these conflicted purposes.

The other day I discovered, sitting in the bookshelves, unread as yet, Now You Know. Written (or rather, published) twenty years before Skios, and shortly after the splendid A Landing on the Sun, I had great expectations. Which were unmet.

Why did you start doing this, Mr Frayn? Having your cake and eating it. Writing novels with an eye to the stage? Don't write novels if that's your plan. I read this, thinking just like Skios, that it was the detailed plan for a play. A play this time, not a movie, which was more the sense I got with Skios, maybe because it had an exotic location. This time felt wrong because the characters spoke in some way characters speak in a play and not in a novel. I can't say exactly what that means, it's just my intuitive reaction. I kept seeing some stalwart of English TV playing the main character. I kept wanting to speak his lines out loud - see, lines. That's how it felt. And at the same time, none of the characters took form in my mind's eye the way they should in a book. It's like I need to see the play in order to flesh them out.

rest here: https://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2018/07/01/now-you-know-by-michael-f... ( )

If there was total openness and honesty in the world, would that be a good thing? That's the question Michael Frayn puts at the heart of this farce.

Our two main characters are Terry - a 'what you see is what you get' big personality who is a high-profile campaigner for government openness - and Hilary, a quietly committed civil servant.

All his life Terry has believed in the value of openness. It's his vocation - but he also believes in its value in private life. His vision of heaven is based on the Bible's description of it as made of 'gold like unto clear glass':

"A golden light in all the rooms. Nothing hidden. Everything visible. All kinds of comic arrangements you can see inside those rooms, Hilary. People living in their offices, with their suits on coathooks and their clean shirts in the stationery cupboard. People living half the week with their sister-in-law, and half the week with the postman's grandmother. Some of them up to a lot of even more comic goings-on than that. But all of it open for the world to see. So no one thinks there's anything comic about it. And if that's the way it's going to be in heaven, why wait? Why not try and make it like that here on earth?"

Hilary meanwhile comes from a family where secrets were never spoken about, which she reflects wryly was good training for her work. And yet - she is working on a controversial case, a death caused by police brutality which her office is covering up. And Terry's personality can be very magnetic...

This is a farce, so sexual attraction and other hijinks ensure, and Terry comes to realise that there are benefits to being allowed to keep private things secret. As you would expect from Michael Frayn, it's very cleverly written; but the characters also feel like real people, which makes it more than just a farce. I particularly liked the way that many minor characters are given a short period of narration, which makes you realise that they are very different people to themselves than the way they are perceived by those around them - perhaps a nudge back in the direction of openness? ( )

-- Some people read only ____ (fill in genre) or certain authors. NOW YOU KNOW rewarded me for staying with it. As I turned the pages I grew fond of the novel's structure & author Michael Frayn's characters. NOW YOU KNOW is told in the first person, & it's not always Terry. Jacqui, Liz, Hilary, Roy, & others take turns. As Terry & his employees plan campaign against government his relationships & those of employees unfold. In England a lawyer is a solicitor & a bathroom is a lavatory. Jacqui operates an Amstrad which is computer brand. Frayn is a playwright, translator, & philosopher as well as novelist. -- ( )