is Atonement sexist?

[paintandbrush]

Why?

I realise that it features a lot of female characters making poor choices, but the men aren't great either. There have been quite a few accusations of misogyny against McEwan for this one. Will anybody explain the logic behind it all?

I wrote my dissertation on Ian McEwan and gender. Haven't got the brain power to contribute anything now except I loved the film but didn't enjoy the book. I've always found his books interesting rather than really readable. The Cement Garden was pretty disturbing from what I remember.

I absolutely loved the film, the photography was just gorgeous and the soundtrack was even better. Didn't understand the scratches on her arms etc til afterwards though. They probably didn't have enough time to go into it all in any detail.

I don't particularly like the book or IM but I do wonder if some of you are confusing the author himself with authorial comment.

To compare I'm re-reading Bleak House at the moment which has an interesting narrative structure divided between first person Esther , who is a reliable first person narrator(apart from being a little too pleased with herself but understandable in the circumstances) and the unseen omniscient narrator who narrates everything which does not involve Esther. The latter narrator has a very clear authorial bias towards characters and wider aspects of society.

Most of Atonement , apart from the end section, is in the third person- there is no suggestion IM is speaking. He wrote a novel set in the 1930s and using the mores and standards of the time.

Why is it "a little troubling" that Lola should atone for her silence? Why should she not? She was wronged but that does not excuse what she did.

I said that because she's a vulnerable child- no parental figure, victim of grooming, sense of shame back then etc. and yet she's deemed guilty by Bryony at least.

A spritz of rosewater does not an adult make.

She did not remain a child though did she? And she was guilty. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Okay, I do understand the difference between author and authorial comment () but let's go Barthesian on it: this is a text in which discourses which blame the victim appear evident, in my opinion.

It follows also that whether IM said yes, I intended some inter textual reference to Nabokov, or no, that's a fanciful nonsense, doesn't really matter either way.

Lass, I agree with what you're saying, but IM invented that narrator.

He is saying this is what goes on in the head of this woman. This is the kind of book she would write.

And that narrator is an unpleasant and disturbed individual.

I think she is unpleasant and disturbed in ways that people view as stereotypically female, so he has written a sexist book. Other may disagree as to whether or not she is a sexist stereotype. If she's not a stereotypically 'bad' female, merely unpleasant and disturbed, the book is not sexist.

I do think that people are interpreting it as being seen from the perspective of multiple characters and what they think or do, but we only see/hear it from one perspective - Briony's. She is the narrator and we never know if she is saying anything truthful about 'real' people.

The only bit that sounds truthful is near the end when one of the twins cries, and she can't understand why. That then seems ironic, that we can understand the meaning of that and she can't. But even that could just be her being 'clever.' Maybe within the context of her story, she made the twins crying up to create an ironic moment, maybe the twins didn't exist.

Yes, I agree with Trills & Lass.

These characters have complex reasons for doing what they do, like people in RL. They are not black & white, and although they were guilty in their own ways and carried that guilt throughout their lives, the reader can understand and sympathise with how and why they took (or were forced onto) those paths.

Maybe the problem of Lola is meant to make us think- can she be at once innocent and guilty? It's not black and white. As for poor, stupid little Bryony, I think she's just misguided rather than disturbed as such.

" IM invented that narrator. He is saying this is what goes on in the head of this woman. This is the kind of book she would write. And that narrator is an unpleasant and disturbed individual. I think she is unpleasant and disturbed in ways that people view as stereotypically female, so he has written a sexist book."

I don't think Briony is unpleasant and disturbed. She was perhaps unpleasant as a child in ways that children are unpleasant - self-centred & "bitchy" in certain ways but meant well and her lie was based on her misunderstanding rather than evil intent. She was a child, in other words, not a sexist stereotype.

"we only see/hear it from one perspective - Briony's. She is the narrator and we never know if she is saying anything truthful about 'real' people."

Yes, an unreliable narrator, in other words. But then again, aren't we all? Looking back at major events of our lives, do we really recall everything 100% truthfully even if we want to?

But Briony isn't little when she writes the book.

And it's a fucked up thing to do, to write a book about someone else's rape, someone else's false imprisonment, someone else's death, and then have the audacity to write it as if you know what is going on in other people's heads and change the details of their lives.

It reminds me of Martin Amis's autobiography and how he wrote about his cousin's murder in it, and how distressed the family were by him doing so.

If we are to see Briony as 'real,' then don't we have to make the judgement that she has no right to write this book at all, and by doing so she is still treating the people in it as her puppets.

Maybe the problem of Lola is meant to make us think- can she be at once innocent and guilty? It's not black and white.

But who wants to ask questions like that about 15 year old rape victims? I think that's an odd problem to want to raise questions about.

"who wants to ask questions like that about 15 year old rape victims?"

Someone who is not an ordinary author, bound by conventions of which questions can or can't be asked?

Besides, the question isn't asked only about Lola.

I thought Briony was unpleasant as a child and a deluded, unpleasant egotist as an adult. These are not female stereotypes. I don't follow what is sexist about IM writing a female character in this way.

If we are to see Briony as 'real,' then don't we have to make the judgement that she has no right to write this book at all, and by doing so she is still treating the people in it as her puppets

Yes we do have that right and as above she is , at the end of the book , for me , a thoroughly unlikeable character. I fail to see why that makes the book sexist beyond IM has created an unlikeable , selfish and self-deluded character who is female.

Yes, and it's certainly part of IM's MO to ask difficult questions I suppose - markedly so in his most recent.

Can't be surprising though when some people feel that asking such a question in relation to the idea of the rape of a young girl might be a bit problematic.

"it's a fucked up thing to do, to write a book about someone else's rape, someone else's false imprisonment, someone else's death"

I honestly don't see how you can say it's "fucked up" to declare to the world your deepest sin, something eating you up inside. It's not just catharsis but her atonement.

".., and then have the audacity to write it as if you know what is going on in other people's heads and change the details of their lives."

She wishes it happened that way, with a happy ending. It is not malicious. Don't you see that?

"Can't be surprising though when some people feel that asking such a question in relation to the idea of the rape of a young girl might be a bit problematic."

No, it's not surprising but neither is it victim blaming, sexism, etc.

It just means that those some people are not ready to venture outside their comfort zone in this subject. I don't mean this as an insult, though. On the 50-Book thread I linked below, there was a similar discussion re Lolita which I recently read & reviewed, and admitted that my inability to look beyond her rape prevented me from appreciating most of the book. It happens & doesn't mean the book is shit and the author is an ass.

I certainly don't think that the book is shit or that the author is an ass - very far from it. I find much of it actually fairly tremendous, and think IM is among the best contemporary writers.

I do however still maintain that the novel draws on an unchallenged assumption of the culpability of Lola, the victim, for most of its dramatic effect to make sense.

I also think Madame Bovary is fantastic, for example - and yet Flaubert was pretty much undeniably a massive misogynist! I don't personally have a problem with having some problems with writers whose books I enjoy.

"the novel draws on an unchallenged assumption of the culpability of Lola, the victim"

I don't know how you think that, given that the story is all about the unbearable guilt of Briony. Other characters feel guilty in minor ways, but Briony is the major culprit, the one person who sent the wrong person to jail.

As I said to Pink, if you are basing that view of "victim blaming" on anything other than the character's name and depiction as a girl who likes nice dresses & nail polish (as remembered by an envious child), I'd like to hear about it.

I don't see it that way, Cote.

That's the point. People have different moral codes and perspectives.

If someone had done something to wrong me, I would not want them to write a book about the event after my death because they felt guilty. It's just making it all about them and their feelings and their reality.

That's particularly the problem in Atonement because she wrongs Robbie because she is so caught up in her own emotions and her own version of reality that she doesn't see anyone else. Writing a book is just repeating the same thing of her reality being all about her and her feelings.

It's like when people write books about murders. It's always about the murderer and their life and feelings. If she wanted to atone, she'd have written a book that was all about Robbie and his life - celebrating who he was a human being. It wouldn't be rehashing the events of how she destroyed his life.

If someone had done something to wrong me, I would not want them to write a book about the event after my death because they felt guilty. It's just making it all about them and their feelings and their reality

Well yes it is all about them. Briony's atonement is really having her cake and eating it. She is salving her conscience at no risk to herself. But how is creating a vain, egotistical character who happens to be female evidence of sexism or misogyny?

"If she wanted to atone, she'd have written a book that was all about Robbie and his life - celebrating who he was a human being"

A young man she barely knew?

I agree Cote That makes no sense.