Talk:Atonement (novel)

Maybe and Odd Criticism

I haven't read the book, but I checked out the entry to get some idea of what the movie might be about. The description of the plot is pretty poorly written and makes the novel sound like a big pile of crap. Phrases like "confused as to its meaning" and "why he upsets her so." Just come off rather clunkily and the article makes it seem like Cecilia realizes she "loves" Robbie because he wrote her a dirty letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Category: Novels with a pedophile theme?

I do not believe this is an appropriate category for this book. Shoehorn 07:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

it's not Barbara Osgood 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong date on backside of cover

The 2002 Vintage paperback edition (and possible other editions as well) incorrectly states that the book opens in 1934. Here is some proof to the contrary:

- In part one, when Briony sits down in her room attempting to write about what she has seen at the fountain, shortly before Lola comes in (p. 41 in the Vintage edition): "Six decades later she would describe how at the age of thirteen she had written her way through a whole history of literature, beginning with stories derived from the European tradition of folk tales, through drama with simple moral intent, to arrive at an impartial psychological realism which she had discovered for herself, one special morning during a heat wave in 1935." - In part four, during Briony's birthday party (p. 369 in the Vintage edition): "Competing with a wailing baby at the back of the room, I tried to evoke that hot summer of nineteen thirty-five, when the cousins came down from the north."

Carmencantora 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed incorrect text

The article previously stated that "The hospital is also the place where Briony writes the first draft of her book (a novella about the fountain scene)." The novel states quite unambiguously that Briony is staying with relatives when she writes the book, so I've removed this. Solyolyo 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Added Twelfth Night to list of Allusions

I added twelfth night to the list of literary works refrenced, given the photo of (and obvious similarities between) Robbie as Malvolio, which I believe is also refrenced later in the book.

Rape of Lola

I haven't altered the article but I feel someone should, to include the evasive aspect of this- it is never made clear in the book if it is indeed rape or consensual. Also I feel some mention should be made of the paedophilia aspect. Basically, to mention the rape/consensual sex question, and indeed the triangle of the three potential culprits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.73.222.219 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From the fact that Lola gets married to the millionaire Paul and Lolas reluctance to tell details about the person who violated her, it can be assumed that in fact it was consensual sex. Its difficult to believe that Lola was really raped and then later get "accidently" married to that person (Paul) who raped her. Its much more likey that both got caught in the act by Briony and Lola invented this rape by an unknown to comply with the victorianian habits/ Victorian_morality and protect both thus her and Pauls integraty. Additionally she must have recognised the voice of the millionare when he "contacted" her in the darkness before actually raping her. Plus: Briony had invented the same day an other rape in the library as well. so she was kind of awaiting to name any anonymous rapist which should present himself at the scene. --Stefanbcn (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure; at the family dinner before the incident, Briony notices that Paul has scratches on his face, just as Lola has scratches and bruises. I thought that this was a clue that Paul had tried to attack her before dinner at some point, and that Lola, for whatever reason (perhaps because Paul had threatened her) told everyone that the brothers had done it. Also, as an adult, Briony still thinks of Paul as a rapist, even though she has "grown up," as she says, and changed her mind (or realised the truth) about everything else. I think that he, therefore, did rape Lola, and that Briony's conclusions as an adult are correct. Besides, I don't think Lola "accidentally" married the man who raped her; if you recall, she herself seemed to have been swayed into believing Briony's lies to a certain degree herself, and was perhaps persuaded into ignoring Paul's guilt.

That's just what I got out of it, though, and I understand your ideas. Maybe McEwan wanted to leave it ambiguous.--DearPrudence (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Lola and Paul Marshall are used by McKewan to encourage the reader to make the same mistake as Briony. All evidence as to Marshall's guilt is circumstantial. Was it rape or was it consensual? We are in the same position as Briony. We don't actually know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.130 (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I had that exact same insight too! I wonder no one has posed it to McEwan before to get his take on it. User: Afghan Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.202.121 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but I think it is more, as DearPrudence said, McEwan wanted to leave it ambiguous. I find it doubtful that it was truly consentual, with the scratches and whatnot. I find it more believable that she, like many rape victims, just couldn't accuse him, for fear of what might [further] happen to her if she were to. Marrying him later on might have been slightly because he pressured her and partially because she felt she had no choice, seeing the past. I think McEwan is dipping into the whole psychology of rape, just a little, to make you ask questions. So, I applaud you all for asking questions. Justi521 (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Lola wasn't actually raped. If you look at the novel much more carefully you see this is the much more prevalent case. Firstly, they are clearly flirting when they first meet. Emily Tallis describes Lola's personality as that of her sister, Hermione, "Precocious and scheming." Emily hears their first sexual encounter as she lies in bed with a migraine: "There was a little squeal of laughter abruptly smothered. Lola then, in the nursery with Marshall." The marks are probably just from the fact that they were being a bit vigorous. Then, she tells Briony that she got the marks on her arms because she's really excited about her relationship, but because it would have been so scandalous and basically slutty back then (and not to mention he is 24 and she is only 15) that she doesn't want people to want the details. Lola really cares about her appearance, she wears "womanly" perfume. She would want to tell someone that she has lost her virginity, that she is a real woman, but doesn't know how. This would be why she is very quiet about it at dinner. Why would she go out in the dark after this by herself when she knows that there is a rapist about if she wasn't actually raped? That doesn't make sense, does it?

After this, when she is discovered by Briony, you notice that she doesn't mentiont the fact that she was raped until Briony mentions it, then her act completely changes from the fear that "you saw him?" (implying that she was more worried about the social implications- she'd just been caught in the act - saying "i'm sorry" and accepting it "yes." ) to "He came up behind me, you see." When Briony first mentions Robbie's name, Briony feels "Though she had not turned, or moved at all, it was clear that something was changing in Lola, a warmth rising from her skin and a sound of dry swallowing, a heaving convulsion of muscle in her throat that was audible in a series of sinewy clicks." This is amplified greatly in the movie, and as McEwan is the executive producer, you can see that he obviously wanted to emphasise this because so many people are missing this. Also, Marshall seems completely at ease as the rape allegations are being made: if it was rape, don't you think that he might be at least a little worried about being caught, instead of taking a nap? Okay, so he was tired from all his shenanigans.

Lola is a drama queen, this is why she takes over Briony's play, her language(the main theme in the novel is the power of words, here it is Lola's lack of words that shape the novel - Briony for example, goes from using words inappropriately to show her naivety to being able to "atone" using her language), her appearance is all adding to this fact. Emily Tallis sees this in her, too, just like her sister Hermione. Later, they get married. I don't think that Lola would feel obliged to marry Marshall if she was raped. Surely, that does happen in relationships, but this is mostly when people are already in these relationships, Lola has no ties to Marshall apart from the fact that he raped her, so if she was reasonable she would get away from this relationship. Instead, she was consenting and this would be why they would get married. Marshall came to the house expecting to marry Cecilia, but as she was clearly more interested in Robbie, he turned his attentions to Lola. He doesn't really care who he gets, he's a boring tosser, he just wants someone, and Lola is convient, attractive, and willing. Poor Briony comes across this, and as she's been walking around all day with this idea of rape in her head, and saw her sister being "violated" by Robbie, something that she knows Cecilia would not do otherwise,she naturally assumes that it is rape, and Robbie is the perpetrator. She is only 13 for crying out loud! Of course she's not going to be a brilliant witness, of course she's gonna jump to conclusions, it's in her disposition as a writer! And don't even get me started on why Emily Tallis is responsible for all this, egging her on as she does... basically, I think that Lola is the most selfish character in the entire novel, and that Briony should not be cast in as nearly a negative light as she is. Despite being annoying at the beginning, she grows up and truly becomes a good person. She atones as best she can when it is really not her fault. I think that people should hopefully start to realise how much of a lying, conniving bitch Lola is, so she can be hated as much as she deserves. Anyone who still looks on her in a positive light after reading this should probably read the book again. 12:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)58.166.236.68 (talk)

I reviewed the text, and it seems quite clear that Robbie raped Lola. The vague references of Briony's "crime" never really made clear what, if any, crime had occurred. There are references that Briony lied as well, but it wasn't entirely clear in what manner. But as far as the assault is concerned, Lola suspected Robbie, and Briony saw someone she believed to be Robbie walking away from Lola at the time. Lola and Briony already discussed the threat Robbie posed, and they didn't even have to say his name for each to know whom they were referring to as "him". --Dromioofephesus (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Atonement (novel).jpg

Image:Atonement (novel).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OR tag

The entire objects/themes section is OR, lacking a single citation or source. Tagged as such. - Anonymous user, 01:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted by other readers, both the Objects and places of significance and the Social background sections were entirely original research. I have therefore removed them. SaintedLegion (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sections that do not currently contain references do not have to be necessarily deleted. Those sections are vital to anyone's comprehension of the book. And most of it could be derived from the book itself. Yes, we should crack open the book and start citing page numbers, but again, we should not delete those sections. Curious enough, may I inquire why you did not try to delete the "Plot summary" section? It too has no references and is just as vital to the article.

Back to my point though, when a section is notable and reference-able, deletion only comes after the discover of, "Oh, this can't possibly be fixed." And it can. Reverted. — Poe Joe _{(formerly Ian Lee)} (Talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the "Plot summary", these sections are a commentary on the book and therefore entirely a matter of opinion and interpretation. Putting in all the page references would not help becuase the sections are expressing an interpretation of the book that is entirely subjective. In order to justifiably include these conclusions they would need to be published elsewhere and then referenced. I've put in some fact templates to show just how many opinions are expressed. Even the assertion that the 'Objects and places' are significant is expressing OR. Therefore I fail to see how this can be fixed. SaintedLegion (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary. Some of the sentences are opinion; most are objective information crucial for the understanding of the book. You can not just delete all those sections entirely! And furthermore, the "opinion" statements are very conservative in their nature. Most everyone in the "Literary Criticism" section would agree. Thus, I would cite some of those criticisms as evidence. I don't have the time, but you are certainly more than welcome. — Poe Joe _{(formerly Ian Lee)} (Talk) 22:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, some of the sentences in these sections are factually derived from the book. However you admit that some of the sentences are opinion. Therefore in an effort to be constructive I have now removed only the OR statements and various weasel words.

You say that the opinions are conservative in their nature. This does not matter, Wikipedia is not the place for unreferenced opinions.

You say that almost everyone cited in the "Literary Criticism" would agree with the opinions. This needs to be proven (and referenced), it can't just be assumed. If you wish to reinstate any of the opinions, please ensure they are referenced. The onus is the person making the claims to back them up - otherwise I could just spout off all my opinions about the book, as OR, without references, and claim that surely everyone would agree.

I have made changes to the article. Grateful to hear your thoughts. SaintedLegion (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Objects and Places

The objects/places section is not well written. It is basically a jumbled collection of arbitrary opinions.

I think this part should be deleted. And so should the social background section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reveree (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

McEwan had only a brother

In the actual novel written by Ian McEwan, the reader knows that in fact the two lovers died tragically and were never reunited, and that Briony was haunted all her life by having irreversibly deprived them of their chance for happiness. However, in the universe of the novel-within-a-novel where Briony is the author, the novel which readers would see would end at with part 3 - a happy ending, where the two survive the war and embark on a happy life together. Only the most curious, who would dig into the novel's autobiographical background, would discover that in reality the writer's sister and the sister's lover were killed in the war.

According to this article, McEwan has only one sibling - his long-lost brother. Am I misreading the above paragraph or does it really imply that he had a sister as well? --DearPrudence (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right as in that article is wrong (more slight ambiguity!). "The writer" could not refer to Briony because the novel would not have what they write as an "autobiographical background". It's wrong though. — Poe Joe _{(formerly Ian Lee)} (Talk) 12:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Poe Joe means, but to answer DearPrudence's question, the line "in reality the writer's sister and the sister's lover were killed in the war" means the character Briony is "the writer" and not the author of the novel (Ian McEwan). In the novel, Briony is meant to be the author of atonement (and it is her sister and her sister's lover who are killed in the war), but in reality it is Ian McEwan.Gopez (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. That clears it up more. I'm going to fix up that sentence in the article to make it more obvious. --DearPrudence (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Part 1 Summary

The summary for part 1 is severely lacking. If I were good at writing, I would. Alas, I don't, so I can't. 24.1.0.232 (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A. E. Housman and Craig Raine

It's worth noting that Craig Raine is in the final acknowledgements. More relevant though would be A. E. Housman whose work is included in the story and probably should be mentioned in the literary references. I understand he might not be the most popular poet but his work certainly isn't obscure. -Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.184.52 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Untitled section January 2015

Best fictional I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.106.29.42 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

But what really happened?

Is there a place in the novel text somewhere that explicitly states what actually happens? The text seems to be full of contradictory statements. In the postscript, the narrator admits to having vascular dementia, and this seems to place even more doubt as to the veracity of anything she writes. The current version of the article seems to make the case that the narrator not knowing the purpose of writing something is equivalent to that something being an ultimate reality. There is nothing more concrete about the existence of Briony than there is for any particular skein the narrator's story might take. And even if the narrator did choose some or all of the ideas proposed about alternate paths, what effect would that have outside of her story? --Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atonement (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526115552/http://dir.salon.com:80/story/books/review/2002/03/21/mcewan/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/03/21/mcewan/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209113046/http://blogcritics.org:80/archives/2002/09/25/130413.php to http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/25/130413.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atonement (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070326135840/http://www.pr-inside.com/mcewan-accused-of-copying-writer-s-memoirs-r27254.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/mcewan-accused-of-copying-writer-s-memoirs-r27254.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/03/21/mcewan/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/25/130413.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Plot description

The plot description is ludicrous. It is extremely naive and completely loaded with the authors misunderstandings. Rikkilito (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)