"Might she come between them in some disastrous fashion?" (302).

Briony's rejection letter is easily my least favorite part of the novel. While we don't really get to see Briony's original manuscript, from the author of the letter's description, I already despise it. It is criticized for being too much like Virginia Woolf's work - another author (like Austen) that I do not care much for. Her novels are much too long with much too little happening in them. There is too much description of how things look, how people feel, it's absolutely exhausting. Briony's first manuscript, which ends with the scene by the fountain, sounds a lot like this. In addition, there is absolutely no acknowledgement on Briony's part of what she did wrong, as the letter states, "Might she come between them in some disastrous fashion? (302). There is no acknowledgement of this at all in Briony's original manuscript, leading one to wonder why exactly she didn't include it. Was she too ashamed? Or, perhaps, did it even happen?

This rejection letter, especially the subtle inclusion of the letter's advice into the body of Briony's novel, leads the reader to seriously question the "truth" of the narrative. In Richard Robinson's article "The Modernism of Ian McEwan's Atonement" he addresses this issue:

"At the same time, however, we momentarily toy with the idea that that story has no foundational reality in Briony’s life, but actually originates in Connolly’s suggestions, including the changing of the vase (from Ming to Meissen [18]) and the piazza (from Navona to Barberini [24]). Thinking at this stage that Briony made it all up is, traditionally, an unhelpful fallback—though it will be rather useful in the long term. At the least a reminder, a proleptic warning about the novel’s formal status, is triggered here; we should not surrender too readily to the enchantments of realism. Aporetic questions will always haunt such moments. Was the “real” vase the un-lifelike Ming? Was there a vase? If not, was there a fountain? The furniture of realism can be changed or removed at a stroke." (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v056/56.3.robinson.html)

These changes definitely cause the reader to question the reality of Briony's narrative, especially in light of her highly imaginative nature as well as her need for secrets.


Robinson, Richard. "The Modernism of Ian McEwan's Atonement." Project Muse. 2010. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v056/56.3.robinson.html>.

"...She might look like and behave like and live the life of a trainee nurse, but she was really an important writer in disguise" (264).

Part three of Briony's novel is about her own experiences working as a nurse. It is implied that she decided to become a nurse, instead of attending college, in order to follow in the footsteps of her sister - a kind of penance to atone for her crime. The work they are required to do is lowly and menial and they are under the strict supervision by the strict and unyielding Sister Drummond, "Praise was unheard of. The best one could hope for was indifference" (258). It isn't until the evacuees start to arrive from Dunkirk that the nurses are able to do any actual nursing work. They are horrified by the injuries inflicted upon the soldiers from the war, an indication of the destruction and horror that would eventually make its way to London. The reader is already desensitized to these horrific injuries from reading Robbie's passage when the injuries are being afflicted.

The strict work and orderly routines, however, seem to be very fitting to Briony's nature. She adores rules and neat, orderly, surroundings, so it seems she should be suited to the work at the hospital. Instead, however, she is appalled at losing her sense of individuality, especially in losing her name, Briony. "'...Your Christian name is of no interest to me. Now kindly sit down, Nurse Tallis'" (259). They are referred to simply by their family name, and this, for some reason, is incredibly difficult for Briony to accept. In fact, her name (which is representative of her individuality) is the final thing she feels the need to say to the dying French soldier. It could be that losing her first name and being simply referred to as "Nurse Tallis,"threatens her individuality. Her sister is also a nurse, and though she does not work in the same place as Briony, she is also indubitably called "Nurse Tallis" as well. The likening of her to her sister may be particularly threatening to her as it is the wrongs she did against her sister and Robbie that caused her to become a nurse in the first place. It could be also that Briony is upset because at home her individuality was of such importance. Even at university her unique talents as a writer would have been praised and encouraged, however, at the hospital she was simply a nurse, "At the time, the journal preserved her dignity; she might look like and behave like and live the life of a trainee nurse, but she was really an important writer in disguise" (264). She had no talents in the hospital and there was nothing special about her. Perhaps this is why the loss of her name is so significant to her and why it it the theme of much of this section of the novel. This seems rather selfish though and not really in line with the theme of atonement.

"'And now you know. I'd risk my life for yours. But that doesn't mean I love you'" (218).

"'Do you know why I wanted you to save me?"
"No."
"Isn't it obvious?"
"No, it isn't."
"Because I love you'" (218).

In watching the movie Atonement, I felt much more significance was given to the drowning incident that needed to be. I always believed Briony's reason, that she was concerned with having the world "just so" and was blinded by her childish belief that everyone is either "all good" or "all bad." Perhaps, as I mentioned before, that was only the reason covering up her real reason, jealousy. In addition, the synopsis on the back of the movie Atonement also gives much more significance to this scene:

"...When a young girl catches her sister in a passionate embrace with a childhood friend, her jealousy drives her to tell a lie that will irrevocably change the course of all their lives forever..." (Thelma Adams, US Weekly). 

In contrast, the synopsis on the back of the novel says:

"...But Briony's incomplete grasp of adult motives and her precocious imagination bring about a crime that will change all their lives, a crime whose repercussions Atonement follows through the chaos and carnage of World War II and into the close of the twentieth century" (Back Cover). 

Keeping in mind that McEwan contributed heavily to the production of the movie Atonement, as well as the fact that Briony wrote the first portion of the novel, it is very possible that this incident between Robbie and Briony has much more significance than I had originally attributed to it. This helps me to view the movie, and the novel, in a much different light. However, as this is a fictitious story, a "real" interpretation is simply impossible. The only one who could perhaps offer a concrete answer in the matter, Ian McEwan, believes instead in the plethora of meanings that his readers derive from the work, instead of one, simple, concrete explanation.

"She was one of those children possessed by the desire to have the world just so" (4).

In reading Peter Matthew's article "The Impression of a Deeper Darkness: Ian McEwan's Atonement "I found a passage that not only endorsed my earlier observations of the plot of the novel coinciding with the atrocities of WWII, but went a step further, likening Briony's obsession with order and her subsequent guilt at her crime to the rise and fall of Nazi Fascism:

In considering these economic relationships, the reader must also take into account that Briony's "debt," her "crime," as McEwan calls it throughout the novel, is framed by the context of World War II. McEwan brilliantly interweaves the family drama with the movement of history, making each set of crimes reflect on the other. In terms of sheer atrocity, the war easily dwarfs Briony's misdeed, but the reader never loses sight of her shameful action. For a novel that draws from some of the key historical events of the twentieth century, however, there is surprisingly little discussion of the Nazis or the rise of fascism. McEwan implies, instead, that the fascist mindset has pervaded modern culture at a much deeper, unconscious level...Briony's interest in writing, to provide a further example, is tied to a fascistic obsession with order. McEwan writes: "She was one of those children possessed by the desire to have the world just so" (4). The point is not that Briony simply reflects the fascist mindset, even though her childish but calculating nature would seem to fit the stereotype. Instead, the narrative of Atonement ends up being an account of Briony's lifelong struggle with her internal attraction to fascism—the "fascism in us all," as Michel Foucault calls it—with its external patterns of order and symmetry (xiii). [End Page 154] (https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/esc_english_studies_in_canada/v032/32.1mathews.html)

I found this comparison extremely interesting, yet slightly horrifying at the same time. It is difficult to compare the crime of a silly naive little girl to the Nazi atrocities committed during the war, however, Matthews does make a good point. Briony's thoughts and actions do parallel fascistic beliefs, and her actions in regards to Robbie could certainly be construed as such. Matthews even goes so far as to liken Briony's horror at Lola and the twins' portrayal of her play that was contrary to her expectations to the Nazi hatred of "impure races" and their subsequent "cleansing" of them through the final solution of mass murder. While I think this view may be a bit extreme, I suppose these parallels found by Matthews are accurate. In addition to likening the personal problems of these characters to the problems of the war, Matthews also explores the possibility of the unreliable narrator, Briony, changing the events of the story to placate her selfish interests - her need for secrets where in reality, none are to be found. I hope to return to this rather upsetting possibility at a later point.

Matthews, Peter. "The Impression of a Deeper Darkness: Ian McEwan's Atonement."Project Muse. 2006. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/esc_english_studies_in_canada/v032/32.1mathews.html>.

"It was not reasonable or just to hate Briony, but it helped" (215).

I had completely forgotten about how Robbie explained away Briony's actions against him. I recalled Briony's insignificant mentioning of the incident, her jumping into the river to see if Robbie would prove his love for her by saving her, but I had just sort of brushed it off. Briony didn't attribute any significance to the incident, however, perhaps simply by mentioning it she is revealing her real, suppressed reason for accusing Robbie: jealousy of his love for her sister. I had never before thought of the incident in this context before, but it does make sense as a possible explanation for Briony's actions. Taking into account that Briony is the author of this, perhaps the whole reason she concocts the reason for blaming him because it "made sense," is to disguise the true, petty reasons for her actions. This could explain her extreme guilt at the end of the novel, as she can never really forgive herself for allowing something as silly as jealousy to ruin the lives of her sister and Robbie. Her covering it up could also be an example of her intense need for secrets explained at the beginning of the novel. In his article "The Impresion of  Deeper Darkness: Ian McEwan's Atonement, Peter Matthews explains Briony's need for secrets:

At the centre of the book's narrative is a secret, an obscured truth, which McEwan uses to lure the reader into the story. Like Briony, the reader is pushed toward a moral judgment by this act of concealment, even though the information necessary to make an ethically informed decision is withheld. Each secret contains two possible destinies, writes Maurice Blanchot, "The stratagem of the secret is either to show itself, to make itself so visible that it isn't seen (to disappear, that is, as a secret), or to hint that the secret is only secret where there is no secret, or no appearance of any secret" (137). The crucial quality of a secret, in other words, lies in its form rather than its content, making the source of its attraction entirely negative. The paradoxical result is that the positive content at the heart of the secret, the evidence that can be gathered and analyzed, is effectively sidelined by the act of obscuration that frames it. (https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/esc_english_studies_in_canada/v032/32.1mathews.html)

While in his article Matthews argues a much different point (that there really is no secret in the novel and the story is merely Briony's attempt to expose her secret when, in reality, she has none - something that I hope to explore later on), the same argument can be used. Perhaps Briony admits to one secret, the possibility of her crime based on her innocence rather than the real reason - her jealousy.

Matthews, Peter. "The Impression of a Deeper Darkness: Ian McEwan's Atonement."Project Muse. 2006. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/esc_english_studies_in_canada/v032/32.1mathews.html>.

"First his own life ruined, then everybody else's" (204).

I haven't really thought much about this story in regards to its relation to the historical backdrop of World War, however, it is impossible to escape the horrible realities of the war in Part two, Robbie's section about his eagerness to get back to Cecilia and resume their love. Robbie and the corporals travel through the countryside, avoiding the roads in fear of air raids, making their way to Dunkirk and the (hopefully) waiting ships. McEwan describes the war in horrifyingly realistic details, trying to show something that really can only be experienced through being there. He describes the air raids, the bombs that vaporized not only the soldiers, but women and children as well. He describes the bodies littering the streets that they are forced to simply walk past. He describes the lack of food and water, the unbearable fear and exhaustion and the force of Cecilia's love the only thing that Keeps Robbie walking towards the sea.

Framing the story in this way, with the historical backdrop of the war, certainly adds an extra element to the story. The first part of the novel takes place after WWI, in the time between WWII. The first portion of the novel takes place in a time of calm, however, the faraway threat of war seems looming on the horizon. Some characters in this portion of the novel express their views on the war, some believing that there will not be a war at all and others knowing that there will be one. Paul Marshall is excited about the coming war, viewing it as an opportunity to expand his wealth with his Amo chocalate bar that he plans to be issued to every soldier. The Tallis family is shielded from the realities of war by their wealth. Robbie, too, has plans to become a doctor with the help of the Tallis family and his studies, as well as position with the Tallis family would keep him from the lower and more dangerous ranks of the war. However, all of this is changed following Briony's accusation. Robbie is sent to prison and Cecilia, estranged from her family, becomes a nurse to aid those injured in the coming war. Both of the lovers are ultimately casualties of the war, Robbie - dying in Dunkirk just before he would be evacuated and returned to a waiting Cecilia, and Cecilia being killed in one of the bombings of London. The personal tragedies of the two lovers coincide with the historical problems of the war, adding another dimension of tragedy on the story. As Robbie thinks on the road to Dunkirk, with the imminent threat of air raids at any moment, "First his own life ruined, then everybody else's" (204).

"Let's forget what you know. You're saying you saw him" (169).

"'You saw him then."

"I know it was him."

"Let's forget what you know. You're saying you saw him."

"Yes, I saw him."

"Just as you see me."

"Yes."

"You saw him with your own eyes."

"Yes. I saw him. I saw him'" (169).

With these words Briony concludes her interview, thus sealing the fate of Robbie Turner. The issue of whether or not Briony actually saw anything at all that night remains in question, and there is a discrepancy in this point between the novel and the movie. In the novel, Briony's insistence on fitting the events of the world around her into the simple, orderly world of her novels, shapes her view on the incident. As Briony the novelist writes, "...she would have preferred to qualify, or complicate, her use of the word "saw." Less like seeing, more like knowing" (159). In the time leading up to the trial, "She was like a bride-to-be who begins to feel her sickening qualms as the day approaches, and dares not speak her mind because so many preparations have been made on her behalf" (159). In Briony's description of the actual incident, she at first believes Marshall and Lola to be a bush, and then sees only a dark human form hurrying away. So she saw nothing...probably. There is the distinct possibility that, as Briony is the author of this novel, she hoped to paint herself in a more flattering light, and thus shape this younger version of herself in order to offer some sort of excuse for her actions. The police even determined that there was enough moonlight and she was close enough to them to see who it had been, "Either she saw or she didn't see" (160). She could have seen something, anything at all, which had impacted her uncertainty, however, she attests that she saw nothing. If this is true, then there is also the very slim possibility that it had been Robbie. As unlikely as it may be, judging from Robbie's character, it is possible. If Briony saw absolutely nothing, then Lola is the only witness. We are led to assume that she lied about not knowing who it was in order to protect Marshall, but what if she hadn't actually lied? Their marriage at the end of the novel is enough to convince Briony that Robbie was innocent, however, this evidence certainly would not hold up in a court of law. With no evidence to directly contradict it and the only witnesses unreliable and biased, these possibilities remain.

In the film, however, it is directly implied that Briony saw Marshall that day. Unlike the novel, Briony has a flashlight (or "torch" as the English say), and for a split second, it illuminates someone. In her surprise, Briony drops the flashlight, yet we are given the slightest hint of red hair, a mustache - very different characteristics from Robbie. It is thus heavily implied that Briony lied. It was not so much that she hadn't seen anything and instead allowed her beliefs to guide her eyes, it was that she explicitly lied. The film relies heavily on the drowning scene, asserting (falsely, I believe) that it was jealousy of Robbie's love for her sister that led her to accuse him. This incident is described in the book as well, however, it is not really given much importance. I suppose, however, that the very mentioning of it by Briony the author could be construed as significant - perhaps a freudian inclusion on Briony's part about the real reason for accusing Robbie. Regardless, the entire novel hinges on this incident, and the various interpretations of the "true" events can change one's entire view of the novel. Unfortunately, as this is ultimately a fictional work by McEwan, the "real" story will never be known - we can merely argue our various interpretations, never being able to reach a definite conclusion.