Seth
Lamb
Mr.
Breaton
ENG
4U
May
25, 2015
Not so Despicable Briony: The Clever
Mask of Childish Naivety
There is a reason why the law treats
children with less contempt than adults, it’s because society realizes that on
average, children are less educated, less informed, and generally subpar in
terms of reasoning, understanding, and rational decision making. It’s not their
fault, it’s just that their brains haven’t developed fully which means they’re
inexperienced when it comes to comprehending more mature themes, ideas that any
sensible adult would easily understand, so the law and consequently the
government decide to go easier on them until they’ve reached the point where
they are fully self-aware of the results of their actions.
In the book Atonement by author Ian McEwan, Briony Tallis is a young girl who
has not yet reached that point in her life when she commits her despicable act,
the point where she doesn’t fully understand the events she witnesses nor the
consequences her actions have on the people whose lives she affects, and she
goes about her life in part one as just an innocent, naïve little girl who
believes she’s doing the right thing; protecting her sister from the clutches
of the woman molester Robbie Turner, as proven when she thinks to herself, “Real life, her life now beginning, had sent
her a villain in the form of an old family friend” (McEwan 148) and, “Together,
the Tallis children would see this brute off, see him safely out of their lives”
(McEwan 148). Naturally for any adult reading this book, it’d be expected that
they find this behaviour mildly or even extremely aggravating, especially since
they have the most experience in dealing with children and their sometimes infuriating,
imperious behaviour as displayed by Briony in part one. However, as stated in
the first paragraph, it’s not entirely her fault, some of the blame can be laid
on the development of the human brain, and society seems to agree (juvenile
detention instead of criminal records and “adult” jail, for example). So do the
actions she takes to try to atone for her crime at such an impressionable age redeem
her? A strong argument could be made supporting her redemption and ultimately,
her atonement.
The first sign that Briony realizes that
she has done something horribly wrong and ruined her family’s interpersonal
relationships is in part two, when we learn from Cecilia’s letter to Robbie
that Briony has enlisted at a hospital as a nurse. Why would this be a sign of
her self-awareness? Well, for starters, her job description could be described
as helping people in need, to try to save them from the cold grasp of death.
Perhaps this is one way in which she is giving back to a world where she took
away joy, in other words, a method of apologizing for what she has done. The
second clue is also in part three, when she pays a visit to her sister (we
later learn that this section was entirely imagined) where she says to her
sister, “What I did was terrible. I don’t expect you to forgive me” (McEwan
318). It’s here that we learn that Briony, at this point in the story, is
completely aware of what she’s done and the pain she’s inflicted on her sister
and Robbie, and she admits it. However, that is not the ultimate clue for
suggesting her redemption. Briony Tallis truly achieves atonement in part four,
“London 1999”, when the reader makes the startling discovery that parts two and
three were fictional, albeit with some historical truth. At this point, Briony
is alone in her crime. Cecilia and Robbie are dead, which means that Briony can
no longer seek forgiveness from them. Her only option at this point is to
forgive herself, and what better way to do that than to write a book in which
the people she hurt most are given what they had stolen from them: happiness,
love, joy. Briony asks herself, “How can a novelist achieve atonement when,
with her absolute power of deciding outcomes, she is also God? There is no one,
no entity or higher form that she can appeal to, or be reconciled with, or that
can forgive her” (McEwan 350). The reason why she writes this novel is because
that is exactly what she is trying to do, by revealing the truth while at the
same time deciding that the outcome for Cecilia and Robbie is one of happiness,
she has found a way to forgive herself. She has decided that atonement can
never be truly reached, as indicated when she comes to the conclusion that “it
was always an impossible task, and that was precisely the point. The attempt
was all” (McEwan 351). In this realization she has forgiven herself, and
thereby achieved atonement, the seemingly impossible task that she made
possible through spending her entire life on trying to make Cecilia and Robbie’s
lives better, even if it was just a piece of fiction.
Comment:
Regarding Elcie’s post and to a greater extent everyone else’s I’ve been
noticing a general pattern in all of the posts that I have read so far, and
that is almost everyone deeply despises Briony after reading part one. What I’m
curious about is whether we’re not looking at this from a fairer point of view?
How many thirteen year olds do you know or have met that are fully self-aware
and actually care about the consequences of their actions? Now compare that to
the number of thirteen year olds who are self-centered, pin the blame on others
whenever they do something wrong, and generally act like entitled, self-serving
brats. We’ve all met them, and chances are that some of us acted exactly the
same way when we were that age. So I’m wondering if the anger that is directed
at Briony is somewhat unjust. Should we cut her some slack? The law seems to
think so, otherwise they’d be sending juveniles to “real” prison where they
risk all sorts of heinous, despicable crimes such as sexual and mental abuse,
as well as handing out criminal records that don’t expire for the rest of their
lives. This is the biggest problem I have with Elcie’s posting: in it she
describes the “evil” that resides in Briony and is what is responsible for
Briony’s “sin”. I completely disagree with this, mainly because of two reasons.
The first reason is the one I iterated on in my own posting, where I explained
the childish naivety that accompanies most children throughout their single
digit years and well into their teenage ones, and the second one is that “evil”
carries a serious and harsh meaning to it, a meaning that I feel is too severe
to be imposed on Briony. By that I mean that in order to be evil, you are
maliciously seeking immoral or malevolent action against someone. I don’t think
Briony was doing that, in fact she was doing the opposite in her mind. She
believed that she was committing a morally sound action because she thought she
was helping rid her family of a sexual maniac. To me that does sound like a virtuous
act, does it not? An immoral person might have simply ignored the rape case or
even committed the rape themselves. So, I ask again: was Briony being
intentionally malevolent, or was she simply confused and of course, naïve? That
is the question Elcie should consider before tossing out words with such a
strong meaning attached.