Comments on: Atonement – Book Review

By: Laura

Laura — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:22:03 +0000

I think Lolas part in this novel is seriously underestimated. Why did she marry her attacker?? Briony of course commits a serious crime which she doesnt fully understand, but remember that earlier in the day of the incident, something happens between Lola and Marshall when they are in the room alone together. She ends up with bruised wrists and he with a scratch on his face. Lola must have known or strongly suspected that Paul Marshall was her rapist. She asks Briony several times if she was sure it was Robbie that she saw, yet lacks the strength of character to override Brionys claims. Perhaps because she is afraid? I see Lola as the real villain in this novel (as well as Paul). We know that Briony has a feeling of guilt and wants to atone for her actions. Lola however, is trying to cover her tracks by marrying Marshall. She never once expresses doubt that it was Robbie. To cover her lie she is marrying the man who really raped her! Lola is complex and we are left to speculate on how she must have felt and what she thought throughout…perhaps Paul Marshall was not raping her at all. Perhaps it was consensual and she was ashamed so went along with the lie to save herself from consequences… thats a whole different line of thought!

By: Caribousmom

Caribousmom — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:28:03 +0000

Pamela: *nods* I do see your point…I agree that McEwan should have let the reader see what Lola’s thoughts were…An interesting thought I had which was stimulated by your mention of pedophilia was that Lola was quite young. Having worked with abused children for some years before I became a PT, I was always dismayed at the psychology that happens between an adult in power and the abused child. Often the abused child will not tell what has happened … mostly out of fear, but also because the abuser connects “love” to the assault(s). Many children remain loyal or even say they “love” their attacker. In no way does this mean they are not traumatized. I’m not sure if McEwan was thinking in this way when he allows Lola to marry her rapist…I know it brought me up short when I read the novel (and I didn’t refer to it in the review because I consider it a “spoiler”). I can certainly understand why readers may not want to read this book or may be offended by this blurring of lines between rape and seduction. I won’t read Lolita because of this same reason – the premise of their being a “love” relationship between an adult and a young girl is just screen for pedophilia (in my opinion). Thank you for this dialogue…

By: Pam

Pam — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:21:00 +0000

Thanks for your reply.

I agree that attitudes to rape were even worse in the 1930s than they are now, but Ian McEwan wrote the book recently, and although he sets it in England in the 1930s and 1940s, he owes it to the reader, I think, to tell us a bit about what is going on in Lola’s mind.

The whole thrust of the book is that Briony did a terrible thing- sending an innocent man to jail by false testimony. Briony has indeed done a terrible thing, albeit that she persuaded herself of the truth of it, due to her mis-reading of the significance of the interactions between her sister and Robbie at the fountain and in the library. Briny’s crime is terrible – but the equally serious crime of rape is really little more than a backdrop to this. That would be fair enough- it’s up to the author to decide what he or she wants to focus on- but the fact that Lola married her attacker just jars, for me. Why did McEwan feel the need to include this? What does it add to the story? Paul Marshall must have threatened Lola after the first attack, not to tell her aunt that he was the one who had bruised her arms and scratched her. It is easy to believe that she would be so terrified of him that she would keep quiet about it, since that’s how paedophiles and rapists often operate, but then it makes no sense that he marries him.

It reminds me of the book “Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded” by Samuel Richardson, a book written in 1740. Pamela is a 15 year old maid whose master is “Mr. B”. B repeatedly tries to rape her. She repeatedly fights him off, so he tells everyone she is a “fallen woman” and sends her to work somewhere else. He later tries to set her up as his mmistress, but she refuses to agree to this. Finally, he decides to marry her, despite the gap in their social classes. Again, it blurs the line between rape and “seduction” and suggests that rapists are little more than over-eager seducers.

Lola marrying Paul seems to send out the message that she suffered no great trauma in the rape, or even that she secretly fancied Paul, so it wasn’t really rape at all…

Pamela

By: Caribousmom

Caribousmom — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:02:46 +0000

Pam: I agree – that is a disturbing element to the story. I do wonder if it is a glimpse into the times – that people during that period in history did not think a man could rape his wife, and women were considered property to some extent. Perhaps Lola’s decision was a way of reconciling the rape somehow…a way to erase it by making her attacker “legitimate” through marriage? I’m really reaching here, but I have no way of understanding this as I see it through 21st century eyes.

By: Pam

Pam — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:56:43 +0000

I am ambivalent about this book. I garee it is beautifully written and engaging, but it first presents the picture as Briony mis-reading Lola’s rape, due to her belief that Robbie is a sex maniac. Why does Lola not expree her belief that the perpetrator is really Paul Marshall? After all, he attacked her earlier that day (or is this too just Briony’s over-fertile imagination?
Later, we are told that Lola is as much to blame as Briony. It is never made clear why Lola decides to marry Paul Marshall. I am disturbed by the idea that a rape victim would want to marry someone who had raped her. This is a disturbing element to the book.
Pame

By: Caribousmom

Caribousmom — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:25:29 +0000

Kate: Thanks for stopping in! That is funny about how we were so opposite in our opinion about pacing! Just goes to show you that for every book there are many opinions

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:32:39 +0000

Hi there, I came over from Semicolon’s roundup! I also loved this book, probably one of my favorites this year – I reviewed it over on mine as well. However I had sort of the opposite problem with the pacing – the beginning absolutely sucked me in, then I thought it slowed tremendously when it got to the section of Robbie in France. How odd!

Great review!

By: Caribousmom

Caribousmom — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:15:22 +0000

Andi: I just picked up On Chesil Beach the other day! LOL! Hope you love this one.

Tracy: I’ve heard that…and I’ll have to see it sometime!

WendyCat: Almost everyone says the beginning bogged them down, but then they loved it!

By: Literary Feline

Literary Feline — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:45:51 +0000

Like you, I struggled a bit through the first part of the novel, but it definitely was worth it in the end. I am glad you enjoyed it!

By: tracy

tracy — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:33:53 +0000

The movie is really good too:)