UKC

Just watched Child in Time. Enjoyed it, but struggled to make sense of some of the plot. Why was the story of Charles included?

In reply to Phil1919:

We've finished watching it, and are similarly baffled. I think it's one of those 'draw your own conclusions' dramas that's no where near as smart as the writers think.

In reply to Phil1919:

Charles represents Bear Grylls, and serves to remind us all that he's similarly pointless.

In reply to Phil1919:
Because he is trying to find a child too (the childhood that was squashed out of him by parents/school/the system). And he was a conservative politician and IM was having a dig at the utilitarianism of Thatcherism - the book was written in 1987.

It isn't *literally* about a child going missing but the non linearity of time and memory. Maybe. Definitely his best book in my opinion.

In reply to Phil1919:


Didn't see the TV version (I'll watch it later), but I read the book recently and the Charles story seemed to fit well as someone searching for a lost childhood. Really good book.

In reply to Stig:


I'm a fan but not read it. Will do at some point.

In reply to Stig:

Thanks for that. Makes sense.

In reply to Clauso:

Nice one.

In reply to Phil1919: meant to add last night: the title is a clue to the double meanings:

Obviously it mainly refers to the lost child, fixed in time. Lots of references in the TV version to them still loving the child (who they imagine later to be an older child or even an adult), which in turn applies to everyone- we all remember our 'inner child' or parents pine for when their kids were younger.

But '*The* child in time' could also refer to how we socially construct childhood differently through history - as in 'childhood through the ages'. This is why there is not just the sub-plot about Charles but the bits about the Government inquiry with various policy wonks droning on about how we ought to bring up children. It seems to be Charles' sense of shame of his hypocritical role in this that contributes to the conclusion.

In reply to Ridge:


I haven't read it but if Ian McEwan has indeed resisted the temptation to resolve the ambiguity in the way that ruined Enduring Love and Amsterdam, maybe I should. Just watched it on iPlayer and it was gratifyingly elliptical.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I think the book may be better than the TV. There were a lot of tantalising themes that weren't fully explored.

In reply to Phil1919:

I wonder does the book end at the same point?

Is the new baby named Charles?