What We Can Know

Part 1 of the novel takes place in a dystopian (relatively near) future, circa 2120. Do you find this dystopian vision convincing? Consider how we transitioned to there from today as well as the details of the world at that time: its geography, culture, governance, technology. How would you compare it to other famous dystopian visions in literature?

Which of the major protagonists (Thomas (Tom), Rose, Vivien, Percy, Francis, Harry, Jane) do you find most sympathetic? Least sympathetic? And why?

Do you interpret the novel’s title, What We Can Know, as an assertion to be fulfilled by the novel? Or perhaps more as a challenge to the reader? What we can we know about historical truth? About the realities of even our most intimate relationships? What can an author or his contemporaries know about how a literary work will be perceived by posterity decades or a century or more later? More generally, what can we know about how the future will view our world?

Reflect on the transition from the documentation of the past in handwritten diaries, memoires, and correspondence to the electronic detritus that historians increasingly must rely upon (including Tom in 2120). How does Tom’s recreation of the 2nd Immortal Dinner Party from the historical resources available to him differ from the version later revealed in Vivien’s penned memoir?

Thomas is writing a history of the so-called “2nd Immortal Dinner Party.” He and Rose conflict when he reveals that, in writing this history, he embellishes or invents somewhat in the interest of bringing lives and times truly alive to his readers. Tom argues that his duty as a historian is to vitality. Do you agree more with Tom or with Rose in your perspective on the writing of history?

The second part of the novel takes the form of the intimate memoir of a mature, sophisticated, emotionally complex woman. In your opinion, does McEwan succeed in presenting this point of view? Especially in portraying her inner emotional life and sexuality? Think about other notable literary works in which the author writes in the first person as a member of the opposite gender and compare with McEwan's portrayal.

Do you think a version of this novel in which Francis Brundy’s celebrated lost poem, A Corona for Vivien, was actually recovered and shared with the world would be possible? If so, would McEwan have needed to recreate the poem itself? What do you imagine the poem to be like?

Was the ending of the novel a surprise to you, or did you see it telegraphed earlier in the story? If the latter, how early? In either case, did you find the conclusion satisfying? What did you think of Vivien's decision to destroy the poem, assuming she was, in fact, denying mankind a masterpiece for the ages? Contrast the morality of her decision with that of the heirs of other famous authors (for example, Garcia Marquez, Kafka), who published works or letters posthumously against the authors' wishes.

The plots of both Part I and Part II of the novel importantly involve marital infidelity on the part of the main female protagonist (Rose in Part I; Vivien in Part II). Are there any interesting similarities or contrasts to be found between the two infidelities? In respect to their motivation; how they affect the marital relationships involved; how they are acknowledged and transcended (or not)?

What stands out to you about McEwan’s writing style?

Both Part I and Part II are related to us in the first person, by Tom simply as a narrator, and by Vivien in the form of a memoir left for posterity. Does McEwan succeed in giving his two narrators distinctive voices? Can you provide any examples?

Vivien’s memoir’s contains considerable reflection on her possible moral complicity in Percy’s murder. In the end is she honest with herself and us? Or too hard on herself?

Consider the novel's portrayal of Francis Brundy. What do you think is McEwan's perspective on separating historical or literary judgement of a celebrated author's merits and legacy from his or her personal character and human decency?