"I couldn't say for sure" (157).

In my previous post, I decided to explore the issue of Lola's consent in the events that transpired on that fateful summer day that the novel centers around. In my rereading of the novel I have found that there are many possible interpretations of every scene. As Briony is the narrator, her account is inevitably biased. In addition, she is writing about 60 years after the fact, and includes omniscient narration of scenes and person thoughts - things that she cannot possibly know. In addition, her inclusion of the imagined scene at the end, as well as her knowledge of the outcome of the story (and her frequent vague allusions to this fact), one cannot help but question the accuracy of her account of the story. In spite of the inevitable plethora of interpretations that one can derive from this novel, due to the lack of information I found on this subject, I decided it would be worthwhile to explore it a bit more.

The first allusion to Lola's probable consent is apparent in the nursery scene. At the beginning of the novel, we witness an example of Lola's character in her insistence that she play the part of Arabella in Briony's play. Briony is outraged, but ultimately yields to the older girl's bossy and commanding nature. In addition, the description of Lola's clothes (the reason why she won't sit on the floor during the rehearsal because they might get wrinkled) and her preoccupation with her hair and her appearance is reminiscent of a girl desperately yearning for maturity. This is hardly the characterization of an innocent, blameless victim. In the beginning of the nursery scene with Marshall, we are privy to yet another example of Lola's bossy and forceful character in her commanding use of the adult phrase, "'Then I'll thank you not to talk about them in front of the children"' when Marshall mentions having read of their parents divorce in the papers. After this exchange, Marshall blushes and apologizes profusely, showing Lola's apparent command over him. He then resumes his small-talk with the children, concentrating specifically on Lola. Lola is flattered by this adult attention and constantly tries to make herself seem more mature. When he compliments her trousers: 

"She was pleased rather than embarassed and her fingers lightly brushed the fabric where it ballooned out across her narrow hips. "We got them in Liberty's when my mother brought me to London to see a show."

"And what did you see?"

"Hamlet" They had in fact seen a matinee pantomime at the London Palladium during which Lola had spilled a strawberry drink down her frock, and Liberty's was right across the street" (57).

 Marshall is certainly expressing an inappropriate interest in the girl, however, Lola (in her yearning to grow up) does not discourage it. Following this is the scene absolutely oozing of sexual tension, " he crossed and uncrossed his legs. Then he took a deep breath. "Bite it," he said softly. "You've got to bite it"' (59). While Lola may not completely understand this underlying implications of this exchange, she simply laughs and dismisses the twins, leaving herself alone with Marshall.

The fact that the twins are not in the nursery with Lola and Marshall at the time that they supposedly inflicted the scratches and bruises on her directly contradicts Lola's assertion and Marshall's defense of it. In addition, her embarrassment and crying when the incident is mentioned alludes to the fact that something other than a sibling quarrel had taken place. It is possible that Marshall threatened Lola into not telling, however, it seems more likely that this commanding girl who is in such a hurry to grow up, was  finally faced with something that she did not understand and that frightened her. That, combined with the guilt of losing her chastity and her utter confusion and the discrepancy of her and Marshall's ages, contributed to her lie. I am amazed that the only adult that commented on the possibility of two little boys inflicting these injuries on Lola, was Emily, whose comment was quickly swept aside by the note from the twins that they had run away. The doctor, at least, should have commented on these injuries in examining Lola, but perhaps he simply assumed that they had been inflicted upon her by her attacker in the last incident.

Finally, after Briony frightens away Lola's attacker, she does not wait for Lola to say who it really was. Instead Briony asks, "'It was him, wasn't it?"' to which Lola nods slowly and hesitantly, yes (155). Then Briony asks her to say his name, and before Lola has time to answer, Briony bursts out Robbie's name - the culprit that most made sense to her. It is only then that Lola sees a way to protect Marshall and becomes uncertain, finally retracting her first "yes it was him" in favor of, "I couldn't say for sure" (157). Their marriage at the end of the novel ultimately shows their feelings for one another. They wait a long time before marrying, keeping their relationship a secret until Lola was of age. I view this incident as an admittance of their feelings for one another, rather than Lola being guilted into making this commitment as a result of her rape. A relationship at Lola's young age was certainly illegal and fearing that Marshall would go to prison, Lola protected him by allowing the younger girl to go forth with her accusation of Robbie:

"Briony offered her a chance and she seized it instinctively; less than that - she simply let it settle over her. She had little more to do than remain silent behind her cousin's zeal. Lola did not need to lie, to look her supposed attacker in the eye and summon the courage to accuse him, because all that work was done for her, innocently, and without guile by the younger girl. Lola was only required to remain silent about the truth, banish it and forget it entirely, and persuade herself not of some contrary tale, but simply of her own uncertainty" (158).

This statement reinforces that Lola did lie, that she knew who her attacker was and out of feelings for Marshall, allowed Briony to accuse him. These events could perhaps be interpreted as the guilt that rapists often feel, however, Lola's marriage to Marshall seems to imply some level of feelings towards him before the alleged attack. Furthermore, the continued allusions to her maturity and eagerness to "grow up" could have led her to consent to sexual acts with Marshall, realizing only after how woefully unprepared she was for the implications of this sort of relationship. Regardless their actions - Lola's lie and Marshall's violation of an underage girl as well as their silence as Robbie was accused - are simply inexcusable and unforgivable.

"'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>.

"'Bite it," he said softly. "You've got to bite it" (59).

In my very first reading of the novel, I was appalled by sexual tension the nursery scene, furious when Lola  "confided" to Briony that it was the twins who hurt Lola, livid when no one at the dinner table further questioned how two little boys could have inflicted such injuries on Lola, and absolutely outraged when Lola said she "didn't see" who had molested her. It was so clear to me that Paul Marshall was to blame (which could perhaps could be alluded to by Briony's narration), and I was astonished when we discussed it in my AP English class later that week, that no one else felt similarly. I found Lola to be a detestable character, one who contributed to and did not discourage the (probable) first violation in the nursery, lied about it and blamed it on her brothers, and finally lied and confessed that she "didn't see" who it was, went along with the lie so far as to wrongfully convict someone, and eventually married her rapist.

In light of this dicussion, I began to question my interpretation of various scene: the nursery scene, Lola's deep blushing and tears at the mention of her injuries, her hesitation to condemn Robbie, and her eventual marriage to Marshall. My classmates did not give any significance to Lola's injuries supposedly inflicted by the twins, and they interpreted her tears and refusal to admit who had raped her as well as her eventual marriage to him as evidence of Rape Shame. According to the Rape Treatment Center, shame is a typical reaction to rape:

"Feelings of guilt and shame are common reactions following a sexual assault. Because of misconceptions about rape, some victims blame themselves, doubt their own judgment, or wonder if they were in some way responsible for the assault." (Link: http://www.911rape.org/impact-of-rape/self-blame-and-shame)

Unlike my classmates, however, I just couldn't explain away Lola's crime in this way. I tried to search for an article that could help to argue my viewpoint, however, I could find nothing. I did feel Lola was responsible, in some way, for Marshall's advances. The mutual sexual tension is evident in the nursery scene, her injuries are obviously a result of (on some level consensual) sexual act in the nursery, Lola's tears are a result of the shame she feels at losing her chastity and the awkwardness of their situation because of her age, and her eventual marriage is evidence of the feelings she has (and always has had) for Marshall. Legally speaking, yes, this sexual act would be considered statutory rape as a result of Lola's age (15), and so to protect Marshall, she allows Robbie to be blamed. The difficulty, however, in arguing this point is that there is the ever-present threat that this view could be interpreted as an attempt to put blame on the innocent victim of rape. As the Rape Treatment Center goes on to say, "Feelings of guilt and self-blame may be reinforced by the reactions of others, who, because of prevalent myths about rape, may blame the victim or criticize his or her behavior." I do believe there was some element of consent in Lola's rape, despite the possible criticisms of this view, and I hope to further explore this point.




"Self-Blame and Shame | Rape Treatment Center." 911rape.org | Rape Treatment Center. Web. 23 Nov. 2011. <http://www.911rape.org/impact-of-rape/self-blame-and-shame>.

"...If he had ever thought about her at all he might have said she was a bit horsey in appearance" (74).

After dwelling on my previous thoughts regarding the nature of the Atonement film and its relation to the novel, I decided to dig out my DVD copy of the film and see if there were any director commentary on this subject. To my happy surprise, I found a segment entitled "Atonement - Novel to the Screen," featuring commentary not just the director, but Ian McEwan, the producer, the screenwriter, as well as a notable actress from the film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz3uoahh9qs

In this interview, McEwan keeps with his aforementioned views of the limitations of films as opposed to novels, stating, "In a movie you only have what people say and do...and you must find some way of getting those interior feelings across." In addition, Keira Knightly, the actress who plays Cecilia Tallis, also admits to this difficulty, however she admits that this difficulty is also helpful to her acting,"It's always great, when you've got something based on a book, that has that much internal dialogue, to go back and go, "Okay, that is what my character is thinking at that point," and to be able to go back see that it's very clear where these characters are coming from." Having read the novel as many times as I have, as I watch the movie I almost unconsciously match the scenes with McEwan's elegantly descriptive prose about the event. I was never sure, however, if the actors were given the same stage directions that appear in the novel, or I simply perceived the acting to align with my expectations. It was extremely refreshing, then, to hear Knightly's commentary on the novel and its transition into film, acknowledging that not only has she read the novel, but she uses it as a basis for her acting. 

The film Atonement, in its transition from novel to screen, was given many opportunities to culminate in utter failure. Had the other screenwriter mentioned in the interview been picked, or if different actors and actresses had been chose, if McEwan had not worked closely on the project - the novel certainly could have ended in failure, much like The Trials of Arabella. I found the choices made in regards to the film were spectacularly made. The acting was terrific (In fact, ever since reading Robbie's description of Cecilia, "That long, narrow face, the small mouth - if he had ever thought about her at all he might have said she was a little horsey in appearance. Now he saw it was a strange beauty" (74) I could only envision Knightly as playing Cecilia as in different lights Knightly can be either radiating of beauty or, as Robbie says, "a bit horsey in appearance."), the screenplay was "stupendous," and the creation of the scenery was heartbreakingly beautiful.

"It seemed so obvious now that it was too late: a story was a form of telepathy" (35).

In returning once again to Briony's failed play and the reasons for its failure - the incompetence of the twins, Lola's stealing of the role of Arabella, and the inadequacy of the props and available materials - one can conclude that the ultimate reason for the failure of the story was that Briony simply used the wrong form. As Briony states in arriving at this realization:

"In a story you only had to wish, you only had to write it down and you could have the world; in a play you had to make do with what was available: no horses, no village streets, no seaside. No curtain. It seemed so obvious now that it was too late: a story was a form of telepathy. By means of inking symbols onto a page, she was able to send thoughts and feelings from her mind to the reader's" (35). 

Keeping this in mind, one cannot help but wonder how Atonement, a novel that is so much about the complexities of the perceptions of individual human minds, has been adapted into a rather successful major motion picture as a film is really nothing more than a large-scale version of a play. There are the same limitations as in Briony's play: the competence of the actors and actresses and also monetary budget restrictions that impact the quality of props, supporting characters, and scene settings. Throughout this process, there are many, many opportunities for failure. Just as in The Trials of Arabella, any number of factors could "ruin" the film for either the director or Ian McEwan, as he took a large role in the production of the film. The looming threat of failure is ever-present in the making of a film and there are so many factors that contribute to the overall project that one person doesn't really have any control over it whatsoever. This is indubitably threatening to Briony's overwhelming need for order and control, thus why she finds novels more suiting. It has been said that  through the character of Briony, McEwan reveals his own views on the nature of writing. In a 2002 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle McEwan mentioned that his views on novel writing vs. play (screenplay) writing to be very similar to those held by Briony:

Q. How do you compare the artistic satisfaction of writing a screenplay to writing a novel?

A. It's hard to take screenplay writing as seriously as novel writing. You're not God, you're not even a demigod, you're not even a cherub (3). 

(Article Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/10/RV51718.DTL) 

In this interview McEwan addresses something that is often referenced by Briony's character - her role in writing novel, as God. This is essential to Briony and it seems, by this quote, to be of some importance to McEwan as well. So the question remains, how does a novel that outright condemns all forms of plays go on to become a successful major motion picture? I suppose the grand Hollywood budget, nor the appearance of two big-name actors, Keira Knightly and James McAvoy, certainly didn't hurt the success of the film. Indeed, Atonement, had much more resources at its disposal than did Briony's little play. However, the film Atonement is not without its small failures - its inability, due to the very nature of plays, to convey the accurate emotions of the characters as well as its trimming and changing of certain elements in order to satisfy time constraints and overall aesthetics of the film. Despite these small and inevitable failures, however, the film Atonement is one of the more successful (in my opinion) adaptions from novel to film.



Wiegand, David. "Q&A with Ian McEwan: Getting Rid of the Ghosts." Editorial. San Francisco Chronicle 10 Mar. 2002: 1-3. SFGate. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. <(Article Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/10/RV51718.DTL)>.

"Two Figures by a Fountain"

In witnessing the rather bizarre interaction at the fountain between her sister and Robbie, Briony attempts to carry out her aforementioned realization, that others are just as alive as she is, by seeking to write a story about the incident from three different viewpoints:

"She could write the scene three times over, from three points of view; her excitement was in the prospect of freedom, of being delivered from the cumbrous struggle between good and bad, heroes and villians. None of these three was bad, nor were they particularly good. She need not judge. There did not have to be a moral. She need only show separate minds, as alive as her own, struggling with the idea that other minds were equally alive" (38).

This passage seems to assert that Briony's realization is complete and that instead of disregarding her earlier contemplations, she wholeheartedly embraced them. This assertion, however, is a direct contradiction of her earlier statement in regards to the existence of other minds as alive as her own, "She knew this, but only in a rather arid way; she didn't really feel it"(34). In fact, just after the former quote about the incident by the fountain, the author Briony goes on to call the reliability of her total realization that day into question:

"...it was not the long-ago morning she was recalling so much as her subsequent accounts of it. It was possible that the contemplation of a crooked finger, the unbearable idea of other minds and the superiority of stories over plays were thoughts she had had on other days...However she could not betray herself completely; there could be no doubt that some kind of revelation had occurred When the young girl went back to the window and looked down, the damp patch on the gravel had evaporated. Now there was nothing left of the dumb show by the fountain beyond what survived in memory, in three separate and overlapping memories" (39).

This acknowledgement by the adult Briony calls into question the accuracy of her above statement. If she had followed her realization, that other minds are as equally alive and significant as her own, all the way through then she would have contemplated the letter and the scene in the library further. She would have taken into account Robbie and Cecilia's viewpoints, instead of jumping to the wrong conclusions which led to Robbie's wrongful incarceration. As Briony was still very much a child, it is possible that she simply did not understand these incidents. However, in keeping with her revelation and her aforementioned decision of withholding judgement, Briony should not have condemned Robbie. Rather, as with the scene by the fountain, she should have viewed these incidents cautiously and with the full knowledge that perhaps there were things at work here that were beyond her comprehension. The acknowledgement that perhaps she hadn't fully come to this conclusion on this fateful day by the author Briony makes sense in the unfolding of events in the rest of the novel. It seems much more likely that perhaps the thought may have crossed her mind but, as she stated earlier, "She knew this, but only in a rather arid way; she didn't really feel it"(34). It was there, yet unacknowledged. Her realization in watching the scene by the fountain seems out of place in regards to her later actions in the novel. Indeed, it is right after this incident that Briony goes out to the island to thrash nettles out of anger for her ruined play - hardly the actions of an enlightened novelist. Also, I think that it is much easier for the reader to forgive Briony for her crime in believing that she committed it unintentionally, out of innocence and her inability to grasp the concept of other points of view. Alternatively, it is much easier to condemn her in believing that she did grasp the full extent of her realization and instead disregarded it, in favor of her childish views of good vs. evil.