Atonement

Outstanding book! I think the movie also did it justice.

What a strange and powerful novel, one that begins its story with a quote from Jane Austen's Northanger Abby.

Why? Because Ms. Austen was the master of comparing the controlled, domestic world of the home with that of the chaotic, spontaneous world of the outside, the unknown.

Mirroring this idea, the self-centered 13-year-old Briony Tallis wonders early in McEwan's story, "Was that really all there was in life, indoors or out?"

Yes, Briony, that's all there really is. Oh, except one more thing. . . the interiors and exteriors of people, too. The reality and the mask. The private and the public. Who we are, versus who people think we are.

Oops, and one more thing. . . "It wasn't only wickedness and scheming that made people unhappy, it was confusion and misunderstanding; above all, it was the failure to grasp the simple truth that other people are as real as you."

Okay, so let's get this straight. Life is about the world within and the world without, confusion regarding the perceived "safety" of home and the "threat" of the outside world, and the dangerous assumptions we can make about people and their potentially devastating outcomes.

And what's war? Well, you know that already. War is hell. But isn't it also the biggest metaphor for the "outside world" and all of its worries? Doesn't war also serve to remind you that you're not always safe in your home? Of course! It can threaten your domesticity, render you homeless, and cause you to desire, above all else, the safe return to home.

Ah, home sweet home. But what about that bad stuff that sometimes goes on upstairs with bad people that you thought were good? And how often are our perspectives aligned with the truth?

You won't have any better answers to these questions after reading this book, but you'll have thought a whole lot more about "a wild race of men from a terrible world."

Đọc lần 3: tháng 11/2023, lần đọc lại này mình lại ấn tượng với chương cuối nhất, nói về quan điểm nghệ thuật của Briony (hay của chính Ian McEwan) về cái khả năng chữa lành chuộc tội của văn chương và trí tưởng tượng, nhà văn có thể tạo ra cái thế giới câu chuyện của riêng mình mà trong đó họ có quyền định đoạt số phận của các nhân vật bất chấp thực tế như thế nào, và một khi tác phẩm sống lâu hơn nhà văn hoặc những nhân vật tạo cảm hứng cho cuốn sách đó thì điều thực sự diễn ra với mọi người lại chính là điều được viết trong sách, và từ đó nhà văn, cũng như Chúa trời, đã biến những điều bất khả thành có thể.
Bên cạnh đó thì nhiều người không thích cuốn này vì nhịp điệu chậm rãi, chi tiết quá thì mình ngược lại, mình rất thích cái không khí nhẩn nhơ mà nặng nề Ian McEwan tạo nên trong nửa đầu của cuốn sách, khi ông sắp xếp mọi thứ với sự điềm tĩnh đến mức khó chịu - đặc biệt với độc giả đọc lại như mình, nghĩa là đã biết trước điều gì sẽ diễn ra - nhưng lại có sự quyến rũ với cái không khi đặc quánh những tâm lý, suy nghĩ phức tạp không thể giải bày.

Đọc lần 2: tháng 6/2018, vẫn cảm giác buồn đến vỡ tim. Dẫu đã biết trước cái kết, dẫu những lời nói đã thốt ra thì sẽ không thể vãn hồi.
Cái nắm tay ngập ngừng nhưng đầy khao khát trong quán cà phê đông đúc, con ruồi bị mắc kẹt vo ve trên bậu cửa sổ giữa cái nắng thiêu đốt của mùa hè, cái chạm dịu dàng đầy thương mến vào mặt nước trước đây vừa mới xao động - những cảnh tượng ấy vẫn đủ sức ám ảnh, rút cạn tâm hồn và thiêu đốt tâm can mỗi khi nhớ lại.

I always have a problem with Ian McEwan's novels. On the one hand, I am impressed by the expert writing, the elegant flow with never the least snag in the language to trip me up. On the other hand, I cringe from his stories, full as they are of treacherous snags to trip me up at every turn. I read them with a terrible anxiety hovering near my heart. Am I the only one who is so sensitive to their exaggerated aura of menace? Friends who like McEwan's writing don't feel this at all. Why have I read so many ? Partly because of the critical acclaim that welcomes each new novel, partly in the hope that this time the story will be as satisfying as the writing. I continue to live in hope...

'I had written him a letter which I had, for want of better
Knowledge, sent to where I met him down the Lachlan, years ago,
He was shearing when I knew him, so I sent the letter to him,
Just "on spec", addressed as follows: "Clancy, of The Overflow"'

To borrow the opening verse of a famous Australian poem by Banjo Patterson, this is precisely what parts of Atonement feel like. A letter, written and directed to relatives wrongly accused in the hope of seeking forgiveness or at the least: atonement. Atonement is one of the finest modern literary novels I have read, lyrical and hauntingly moving, while captivating the reader with an interesting story. As for the ideas behind this novel, they are profound. I believe this book alone is one which should class McEwan as a writer deserving of acclaim.

I noted in the previous McEwan novel I read how McEwan had written in the first person present tense. In Atonement his writing is still a beautiful, if not more beautiful, but set in the third-person. And personally this works better in describing the events of the story. By the end of the novel the narrative does drift into first person, but only as necessary for the story's completion. For by the end of the novel the reader will see that this book is 'not written' by McEwan but rather by Briony Tallis herself as her testimony of a wrong once done. I thought this method of having Atonement be something of a book within a book was a brilliant meta-linguistic technique. Of course I did not recognise this until the end of the novel, which is when McEwan wanted his readers to see this fact.

The novel focuses on Briony Tallis, a thirteen year old in 1934, who could perhaps be described as capricious and wilful. She wants the world to run according to her designs (as any thirteen year old does) and is a budding author, having been in the process of writing a play. This introduction to Briony perfectly places her into the narrative as a naive dreamer, a girl who sees black and white and then argues what she sees.

At the story's opening Briony Tallis spies her sister Cecilia strip down to her underwear in front of one particular boy, Robbie Turner and so begins a dreadful misinterpretation, particularly when she reads a smutty letter from Robbie to Cecilia, as Briony suspects Robbie of committing wrong against her sister. This belief is confirmed to her when she finds Robbie and Cecilia in the library making love. When Briony's cousin Lola is raped, she reports that it was Robbie who did the deed, though he claims innocence. And so Robbie, one a 'family friend' is separated from his lover and a once loving family because she believes so clearly that it was Robbie.

The themes of this novel essentially resolve around the conflict created from Briony's mistake. The question is asked subtly by the novel: can anyone be forgiven or make up for a mistake made as a child? The question is not should they, for I think that most people would believe that yes, an individual should be forgiven if they are truly sorry for their mistake. But the question asked is 'can they be forgiven?'. Another aspect of McEwan's brilliant writing is that he does make complOvex and solid characters in this novel who respond not to fairytale logic but rather who respond as emotional individuals. And as emotionally driven humans there are some crimes and some wrongs that we never want to right or forgive. Personally this element touched me due to my beliefs in God and that we all need someone who can unconditionally forgive, because I do not think that we as people can forgive every detail of a crime done against us. Or we may pardon them but never forget their mistake. We will allow mistakes to colour our perception of individuals. And from this perspective this was a great book, along with the writing, the characters and the overall story.

Overall a piece of literature that deserves to be read and has been read by many hundreds of thousands of people. It's a potential classic in the making and certainly has to be McEwan's best work in writing. I encourage anyone who is interested in stories about unfair accusations and forgiveness to give it a try if they have not.

There's a persistent myth that when women aren't actively lying about rape, we are constantly misinterpreting male sexuality instead.

I made a joke, and now she's accused me of sexual harassment and HR is on my back, but it was an innocent wisecrack and she's just confused! Confused, I tell you!

Men are forever praising women for apparently possessing a magical power called "female intuition", but it seems this magical power always gets it wrong when it comes to sex. Funny, that.

Atonement is about a little girl who gets it wrong, and consequentially Ruins Lives.

And if Ian McEwan wants to tell this particular story, why shouldn't he? Because isn't it true that nothing is off limits in literature? Oh, yes. But it is equally true that no literature can be divorced from its social context either. The context we're working with here is one where we can ask any social services worker, and they will tell us that one of the biggest problems in cases of child sexual abuse is that other adults frequently didn't believe the child. The context is one where every day the real, flesh-and-blood lives of women, children and occasionally men are ruined by the doubt and dismissal of their claims.

Given this context, if you want to tell a story about a girl who misinterprets adult male sexuality and ruins a poor chap's life, you'd better have an excellent reason for doing so (and you'd better proceed with care too). McEwan has no reason beyond a thinly veiled defensiveness that permeates the book, and from that, I can only surmise that he is an intellectually dishonest creep.

This book is just more of the same insidious cultural propaganda that, when someone says Rape, encourages us to reply: Nuh uh. Misinterpretation or lie. Propaganda is always unforgivable. I wouldn't go so far as to say that authors have a social responsibility, but when authors are self-servingly irresponsible, I will give them no quarter.

The prose and pacing in Atonement is fairly good. In terms of craft, this book deserves more stars, but I won't be handing them out. McEwan doesn't play fair, so I won't either. I'm keeping my copy of this for the zombie apocalypse, when kindling will no doubt be in short supply.

To summarise, this is a terrible, terrible book.

(Yes, two terribles. Thank you, Skyler White).


For a better and more detailed review raising similar issues, see here.

I'm pretty sure this was initially 2 books merged into 1. One on war and one drama used as a cameo. Maybe there was a part bildungsroman thrown into the mess for adding more poignancy to the drama? Maybe not.

God forbid ever meeting people like Briony. She's such an idiot with all her aesthetic way of thinking. Even in her mature age she still is one. For one, she believes that her writing is some sort of atonement. As if anyone would care about her graphomany. As if her magical thinking would have any other effect other than make her believe that she got her atonement by doing something that she believes useful. Good for her. Under all her everything she's still that brat who believes that the world's biggest problem is her play / her atonement / her fantasies / her and not the people whose lives she blew up.

And everyone around her is not much brighter. Her so-called precociousness is basically too much free time on her hands. Maybe she should've been, I dunno, studying Math or Chinese to set off some of that fantasy keeping her up doing harm? Or washing dishes? Or helping whoever was cleaning their house? Betty? Or learning domestic economy or whatever it was that women were supposed to learn at that period? I'm totally sure that had her idle time been shortened by at least 50%, there wouldn't have been any grounds for the debacle. She would've been taught to distinguish between fantasy and actual stuff (don't tell me she was too young for it, kids as young as 3-4 can do that perfectly fine!) and that would've at least given her a chance to distinguish between her maniac perceptions and what she actually saw. As it was, she was half-mad with her fantastic thinking and was very far removed from real life.

So, considering that I believe that the whole premise is ludicrous and the bunch of these MCs need a shrink and some sensible activities to do, I'm looking at the plot and thinking it's dreadful.
I definitely dislike all the other reviewers' arguments about how she was a kid and didn't know what she was doing. Since, what does that really mean? What, every kid now has a free pass to go and destroy some lives? That's why kids don't vote, because they might not know what they are doing. And that's why they need upbringing and education and medical help (incl. psychiatric, if needed).

The sex-rape-id-thing. What the hell was everyone thinking? A not-very-stable not-so-little girl accuses a boy of a rape and they just lap it up! How could she have seen his face in the dark?
And what was her fragging deal? She was quite old to bother people into playing out her horrible plays? Isn't she then old enough to maybe think a bit in a straight way?!

I think Robbie's just not very well-written. It's just as if the author wanted him to be a shade of some general partially randomized boy. You know, to give the general idea of all the wrongfully-accused young men who, well, got into mess not of their own making?
Or is that the author just showing us that large chunks of the story are just Briony making all this stuff up as some sort of self-therapy? If so, how very nice for her.

Basically, the only really fleshed out character is Briony. The rest read like ghosts: moth-like, we've got names, we've got them doing things but they are transparent. Likely that's the author letting us feel that we are seeing things second-hand with Briony's eyes.

The atonement: None for anyone. We don't enter the same river twice: we may only dream about it.
One can be sad with Briony not getting her chances but damn, the 1st part was such a stupid plot twist. On the chances:
- she didn't get her memo for not making stuff up and subsequently, no chance for actual atonement for her / by her. Some things you can't take back so best to tread carefully all along.
- quite a lot of characters didn't get the chance to live and love at all. Even the several years that were allotted to them before war: yes, to Robbie and Cecilia.
B. basically robbed them of their whole lives: while war wasn't of her making, the aftermath of the rape debacle for the 2 of them was. And, as destiny would have it, that was all that there was to be. Until B's tender mercies.

Briony being a l'enfant terrible:
Q:
She was one of those children possessed by a desire to have the world just so. Whereas her big sister’s room was a stew of unclosed books, unfolded clothes, unmade bed, unemptied ashtrays, Briony’s was a shrine to her controlling demon: (c) Dratt. This girl just has too much of free time on her hands. They should've just gotten her to do something useful with all that extra energy: study Chinese, go and train to become an Olympic-grade skater, study physics for science career... You know: useful stuff.
Q:
Nothing in her life was sufficiently interesting or shameful to merit hiding; no one knew about the squirrel’s skull beneath her bed, but no one wanted to know. (c)

Briony's social skills are pretty much nonexistent. Kudos to McIan for getting how children can sometimes think but drat, that's horrible to follow. She actually tries to rope her cousins into a play rehearsals no more than 6 minutes after their arrival. She doesn't even have the slightest idea that maybe some people would hate the idea of participating in a play. Why did no one stop (even for a bit) to discuss with her how other people might feel? Kids can be especially dumb when it comes to other people. I'm pretty sure she had no idea that other people might have personal lives out of her censoring.
And her interaction with Lola?
Q:
Briony struggled to grasp the difficult thought, wasn’t there manipulation here, wasn’t Lola using the twins to express something on her behalf, something hostile or destructive? Briony felt the disadvantage of being two years younger than the other girl, of having a full two years’ refinement weigh against her, and now her play seemed a miserable, embarrassing thing. …
she proceeded to outline the plot, even as its stupidity began to overwhelm her. (c) Well, it was a miserable thing. Who are we kidding?

Briony's very egoistic from the start and she seems to be very much in love with her older brother. What's it with McEwan and incest themes? Well, at least this time around the incest is more of a subconscious longing than action plan.
Q:
She was not playing Arabella because she wrote the play, she was taking the part because no other possibility had crossed her mind, because that was how Leon was to see her, because she was Arabella. (c) God, she was Arabella? She was supposed to demonstrate to her bro that he should marry a nice girl she approves of. And then what, because of her cousins' freckles, now she is Arabella?

Melodramatic much?
Q:
As she saw the dress make its perfect, clinging fit around her cousin and witnessed her mother’s heartless smile, Briony knew her only reasonable choice then would be to run away, to live under hedges, eat berries and speak to no one, and be found by a bearded woodsman one winter’s dawn, curled up at the base of a giant oak, beautiful and dead, and barefoot, or perhaps wearing the ballet pumps with the pink ribbon straps… (c)
Anyway, what's Briony's deal that even after all the time, plays seem to remain her only instrument of self-expression?

Q:
I was elated and urgently wanted to tell my closest friends.(c) That's Briony rejoicing on the vascular dementia news. Isn't she still a drama queen? 

Other fun ideas:
Q:
It was not generally realised that what children mostly wanted was to be left alone. (c)

Atonement, Ian McEwan

Atonement is a 2001 British metafiction novel written by Ian McEwan concerning the understanding of and responding to the need for personal atonement.

Set in three time periods, 1935 England, Second World War England and France, and present-day England, it covers an upper-class girl's half-innocent mistake that ruins lives, her adulthood in the shadow of that mistake, and a reflection on the nature of writing.

Abstract: On a summer day in 1935, thirteen-year-old Briony Tallis witnesses a moment's flirtation between her older sister, Cecilia, and Robbie Turner, the son of a servant.

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.

Characters: Briony Tallis, Emily Tallis, Cecilia Tallis, Leon Tallis, Lola Quincy, Jackson Quincy, Perriot Quincy, Paul Marshall, Robbie Turner.

تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز سی و یکم ماه مارس سال 2012میلادی

عنوان: «تاوان»؛ اثر: ایان مک اوان؛ مترجم: م‍ص‍طف‍ی‌ م‍ف‍ی‍دی‌؛ نشر تهران، گام نو‫، 1389، در 480ص؛ شابک 9789646917446؛ ‏چاپ دیگر: تهران، نیلوفر؛ 1390، در 437ص؛ شابک 9789644485213؛ موضوع: داستان‌های نویسندگان بریتانیا - سده 20م

رویدادهای «تاوان»، در سال‌های پس از جنگ جهانی دوم سپری، و در این میان به یادمانهای سال‌های جنگ نیز می‌پردازد؛ فيلمنامه «تاوان» را «کریستوفر همپتون»، از همین رمان به قلم «ايان مک اوان»، اقتباس کرده، رمانی که در سال 2001میلادی منتشر شد، و پس از قرار گرفتن در لیست پرفروشترینهای آن روز، به منزلت «مک اوان» افزود، و وی را در کنار «مارتین امیس» و «جولین بارنز»، به عنوان یکی از سه رمان نویس برتر، و زنده ی اهل «بریتانیا»، به خوانشگران شناساند

داستان دارای سه بخش است؛

بخش نخست بلندترین بخش داستان است، این بخش خانواده ی اشرافی «تالیس» را، در سال 1935میلادی نشانه رفته؛ توسط «براینی»، دختر سیزده ساله ی خانواده، که عاشق نویسندگی است، بازگویی میشود؛ این خانواده در انتظار رسیدن پسر خانواده یعنی «لئون»، و دوست او «مارشال» هستند؛ «براینی» برای پیشواز از برادرش، میخواهد نمایشنامه ای که خود آن را نگاشته، به همراه پسرعموها و دخترعموها اجرا کنند؛ او برای علاقه به داستان همگی رویدادهای پیرامون خود را با توجه به خیال خویش بازگو میکند

بخش دوم، در سال 1940میلادی، «رابی» با شهادت «براینی»، پس از سه سال، از زندان به شرط شرکت در جنگ، آزاد شده است؛ «سیسیلیا» دوره ی پرستاری را بگذرانده، و با خانواده خود رابطه ی خود را بریده است، این دو از راه نامه با یکدیگر در تماس هستند و «سیسیلیا» به «رابی» قول داده، در انتظار او بماند؛ در یایان این بخش «رابی» به همراه ارتش در «دانکرک» گرفتار شده، و دلمشغول عقب نشینی هستند

بخش سوم داستان، «براینی» در حال گذراندن دوره پرستاری، در بیمارستانی در «لندن» است؛ او حالا دریافته که «رابی» به دخترعمویش تجاوز کرده، و برای شهادت اشتباه خود، دچار عذاب وجدان شده است؛ از این روی تحصیل در دانشگاه را رها، و به تاوان اشتباهش پرستار شده؛ او در انتهای این بخش «رابی» و «سیسیلیا» را میبیند، که کنار یکدیگر زندگی میکنند، و به آنها قول میدهد که به جبران اشتباهی که مرتکب شده، به نزد خانواده برود، و شهادت خود را پس بگیرد؛ اما در پایان، داستان به گونه دیگری پیش میرود، و خوانشگر را شگفت زده میکند

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 15/07/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 04/06/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی