However, the novel received unfavorable reviews from some American reviewers. A writer for "Kirkus Reviews" stated that although the "first half promises important fiction", the book ends in a "a kinky, symbolic sexual situation which is neither effective as storytelling nor freshly resonant as metaphor”. The reviewer argued, "McEwan seems to be a huge talent constricted by the need to preach, philosophize, or work out private obsessions; and one can only hope that writing beguiling but disappointing essay-stories like this one will free him to write more wide-ranging, full-visioned fiction in the future." Stephen Koch of "The Washington Post" wrote, "It is better written "The Cement Garden".The elegance of McEwan's readabiltiy ["sic"] and technical skill -- invariably much admired -- have been brought to a higher luster and intricacy. [...] McEwan proceeds through most of this sickly tale with subtlety and promise." However, the reviewer also argued that "all this skill is directed toward a climax which, even though it is duly horrific, is sapped by a certain thinness and plain banality at its core", writing that the short story "Psychopolis" from McEwan's collection "In Between the Sheets" covers the same themes more effectively.