Another no-holds barred discussion forum, where you prove that you're the most deadly Atonement ninja in the class.
Atonement is, at core, a novel about trying to fix something that’s irretrievably broken. By the time you finish the book, you realize that the whole story is, if not an outright lie, then a very heavily edited piece of Historical Metafiction, in which Briony tries desperately to re-write her life, and those of the people she’s hurt so terribly.

Your blogging mission is to consider the whole novel, but especially the last two sections (“Part Three” and “London 1999") and prove that, ultimately, Briony isn’t a despicable person. In the words of my learned colleague Cox: “Find something about her to like.” And then prove it.

As with the Hamlet blog, make your stand on the issue in an argument of about 500 words, cite textual references, and then make a detailed comment on at least one classmate’s posting, agreeing, disagreeing, or taking the discussion in a different direction. Making references to life, movies, other things you’ve read, etc. are fair game, as long as they’re relevant. (Again, comment right in your blog entry, don't worry about using the comment links beneath your classmates' entries.)

Finally, be sure to clearly place your NAME in the title of your Posting!

Monday 12 May 2014

Pls Like Me Guys


Please Like Me I’m Not That Bad

Briony oh Briony, where do we start trying to make people like you? A forewarning for this, my reasoning for why one should like Briony might come off as glorifying sociopathic characteristics, but now because we’re studying Post-Modernism it isn’t taboo to do as such. To begin with Briony is honestly a likeable character just as Shakespeare was, no matter how confusing both of their writings are (Atonement and Shakespeare’s plays) these two individuals are far beyond their times with Briony displaying the Post-Modern mindset of “a culture of victimization” as Irving Horowitz refers to it as, and Shakespeare displaying the Human Condition prior to it being coined and explored for years. Briony shows this “culture of victimization” when she accuses and convicts Robbie for the rape of Lola by saying “Did he believe he could conceal his crime behind an apparent kindness, behind this show of being the good shepherd?” (McEwan 173) because she feels victimized by Robbie as you later figure out in Part II as Robbie tells Briony after her staged drowning “I’d risk my life for yours. But that doesn’t mean I love you” (McEwan 248) showing the Post-Modern way of thinking that because something doesn’t work out for yourself, you are a victim of something or someone, in this case Briony is a victim of her older sister causing her “lover” to not love her, therefore seeking revenge as activist groups do now.

Another reason for my fondness of Briony is her manipulative charisma which allows her to contort people’s thoughts and actions for her personal gain, though this is a very well documented sociopathic tendency, it is such a respectable characteristic in my eyes because it leads to so much prosperity for yourself which at the end of the day is the most important thing as all you truly have in the world is yourself without sounding too depressing rather existentially speaking. Going back to Lola’s rape, Briony shows how manipulative she truly can be when speaking to Lola about who she had seen ““It was Robbie, wasn’t it?” The maniac. She wanted to say the word. Lola said nothing and did not move. Briony said it again, this time without the trace of a question. It was a statement of fact. “It was Robbie.” 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 as a series of sinewy clicks. Briony said it again. Simply. “Robbie.”” (McEwan 156). This shows how Briony can implant her thoughts and ideas into other’s heads for her personal gain (revenge), though her actions are despicable they are also respectable in the same way that people were stunned and horrified by the cult leader Charlie Manson while all at the same time media was falling in love with his sociopathic charisma.

My final reason for liking Briony is the same reason I have a strange fondness of Jean-Paul Sarte and Friedrich Nietzsche for being existential nihilists (though Nietzsche despised being considered a nihilist, but some of his works can be interpreted as such), I grew fond of Briony at the end of the novel as she comes to the realization that the attempt for atonement is an impossible and worthless task, “No atonement for God, or novelists, even if they are atheists. It was always an impossible task…” (McEwan 350). Not exactly sure why I like Briony or existentialism for this cynical view on the world, but it someone what stuck to me after reading Nausea by Jean-Paul Sarte and Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche, but the whole idea of knowing and accepting that nothing has worth so there is no reason to waste your finite time on such peripheral matters must be respected by one.

To sum up the whole blog for those who couldn’t care for the jargon and junk in the middle and just want the idea of the whole thing, Briony isn’t that bad because:

1.      Post-Modern thinking in a Victorian home and Modern time.

2.      Really charismatic and can make people do stuff for her.

3.      Realizes what is really worthwhile in life.


Being the first person to post, I had to wait for everyone else to post to have someone to comment on since I didn’t want to go and comment on my own work which is clearly the only correct answer *looks towards live studio audience for applause and approval*. So I’ll comment on Cassandra’s piece since it goes at Briony in the existential form as I did to put it briefly. I come from a more Nietzschean existentialism where everything is done for self-improvement rather than the Camus style. Where Cassandra speaks about that Briony wasn’t a “mastermind” in the revenge against Robbie, that doesn’t excuse the actions for what she had done or means that she didn’t find some sort of sadistic pleasure from the terror she caused in his life. For example, Ukrainians in  Schutzstaffel division on the Eastern front during the Second World War that may have had involvement with the execution of Ukrainian and Russian Jews, but just because they were not the masterminds of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have been blamed for what they had done to the Jewish people, also noting the extreme anti-Semitism within Ukraine in those days where such actions were justified per say. This comment is just becoming senseless rambling which the social sciences and arts just love, I’ll make my second and final point short and quaint. Speaking of how Briony isn’t an existentialist, she is a nihilist in a sense because she realizes at the end in 1999 that all her means to make atonement were worthless, therefore accepting the fact that her life has had no purpose and any purpose was worthless.

I’d like to say that I still enjoyed my post the most because why shouldn’t I? Post-modernism, am I right guys/gals? *once again peers towards live studio audience*
Pretty me explaining who’s post is my favourite
https://vine.co/v/hB10BrX1djb

No comments:

Post a Comment