"'Nothing good will come of it' was the phrase she often used, to which Jack would respond smugly that plenty of good had come already" (142).

In reading several reviews of the book and novel, I have repeatedly seen written that Robbie was falsely accused and wrongfully imprisoned mainly due to his lowly socio-economic position. I always cringe when reading something like this - something that reduces the entire plot of this complex novel to mere economic discrimination. I guess, however, that for some of the characters (namely Emily Tallis and perhaps Leon and their father as well) this was exactly the reason. As Peter Matthews writes in his article, "The Impression of a Deeper Darkness: Ian McEwan's Atonement," the relationship between the Tallis and Turner families is strongly rooted in monetary exchange. While this relationship has grown into something somewhat more over time, the fact remains that Robbie's mother is still an employee in the Tallis home:

 "The history of the Turners' relationship with the Tallis family, for example, is strongly overcoded by monetary exchange. Robbie's parents start out as servants in the household, but with the departure of his father, Ernest, this arrangement takes on a different and more complicated aspect. Grace Turner's usefulness to the family transcends her role as a servant, a fact that the family acknowledges through various gifts—Jack Tallis presents her with the deeds to the bungalow, Grace is kept on in a new capacity, and Robbie's education is paid for. In this initial setup, atonement loses its usual negative tinge. The Turner and Tallis families are united, made "at one" through this mutually beneficial relationship. Robbie is elevated from being the son of a servant to the social equal of the Tallis children, a move that lays the ground for his future romance with Cecilia. But the economic tensions underlying this move quickly become visible after Briony's accusation. Mrs Tallis, the reader discovers, initially opposed her husband's decision to fund Robbie's education. McEwan writes: "'Nothing good will come of [End Page 153] it' was the phrase she often used, to which Jack would respond smugly that plenty of good had come already" (142). However benevolent Jack's actions may be, it is impossible for him to overcome fully the fact that his liberality places Robbie in a position of obligation. While according to the letter of the law Robbie's education is paid for freely, in good will, Jack's reframing of his protégé as a "good investment" unconsciously implies that the return on his money—Robbie's first at Cambridge, his ambition to go to medical school—has paid off well. Thus the benevolence of the Tallis family evaporates once Robbie has been accused, and Emily Tallis, who doubted the value of their "investment" in the first place, is the most forceful and relentless in the prosecution of Robbie."

Reading this portion of the article has definitely changed my thinking a little bit. I had primarily focused on Briony's reasons for accusing Robbie but her reasons, without the additional aspect of his being in a lower class than the Tallis family, may not have been so fully acknowledged by all the members of the family. Briony was only a child, and a fairly imaginative child as her family knew, thus her testimony as a witness had to be taken with a grain of salt. With Cecilia's explanation of the note and the scene in the library, the case hinged more and more on Briony's accusation. Her accusation was simply a door which allowed the biases of the various family members and officials to flow forth. Emily, who had openly opposed her husband's "investment" in Robbie, was more than willing to prove her husband wrong. Leon, however enlightened and open-minded he appeared to be, succumbed to his biases by believing that Robbie was the more likely suspect instead of his friend, Paul Marshall. Their father, who is notably absent from the novel, had originally believed believed in Robbie, however, he refused to come to his aid when he needed it most. It is implied that Jack's absence is not unusual, and the fact that he is staying overnight in the city on so many occasions implies that he is perhaps having an affair. It is possible that he is simply working hard preparing for the coming war, however, it seems very likely (based on Emily's chilly attitude towards him) that he is being unfaithful. With this interpretation, it seems very possible that Jack also believed Robbie to be capable of this act (regardless of his previous faith in him), based primarily on his social class, as if he had truly believed in Robbie he would not have made an effort to be there to defend him (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v056/56.3.robinson.html).

Another instance of this bias is the fact that no one stopped to consider that Leon's friend Marshall could perhaps be to blame. Briony's accusation of Robbie, especially her age and her qualifying, "her use of the word "saw." Less like seeing, more like knowing," lead her to be a somewhat unreliable witness (159). It should have crossed the minds of someone, especially Cecilia, that there was another man who had been out searching alone when the violation had taken place. Even in Briony's imagined scene at the end, Cecilia and Robbie still believed that it was one of the servants had committed the crime, indicating that they had most likely believed this all along. Even Robbie, fully knowing that he had not committed the crime, was influenced by the bias of the time and thought that Lola must have been molested by a servant. I cannot believe that I hadn't really thought much about this before, with all my readings and rereadings of the novel.

Robinson, Richard. "The Modernism of Ian McEwan's Atonement." Project Muse. MF Studies, 2010. Web. 23 Nov. 2011. <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v056/56.3.robinson.html>.