No one has posted here in a very long time now but I'd really like some insight into Atonement and Two Brothers. Given the only close analyses I've read have come from within my class and I'd like some outside perspective.
Atonement Passage Analysis
Through presenting different intentions and reactions passage 1 purports that one’s actions are influenced by one’s interpretation and emotions. The way in which Robbie’s “urgent masculine authority” only causes Cecilia to “tighten her grip” lays to bear the change in meaning that is caused by different understandings of the same action. Cecilia’s aggressive reaction to Robbie’s command illuminates the ability for prior knowledge and emotions to colour the actions of others through different interpretations. This concern is referred to again in passage 2 as Briony perceives Robbie as “huge and wild” in the icy silence of the lovers’ discovery and again in passage 3 as Briony reflects on the emotions and prior knowledge that led her to open the letter. McEwan is alluding to the effect of interpretations upon actions and how all actions are driven by a possibly preconceived interpretation.
Simultaneously passage 1 also develops the idea that facts are interpreted differently and one only sees what one wants to see. Cecilia seeing “a form of challenge, or even triumph” in the fountain after breaking the vase shows a clear correlation between her interpretation and her desire to punish Robbie. The vivid imagery of this passage also allows the reader to interpret the scene for themselves allowing McEwan to establish how profoundly Cecilia’s preconceived knowledge and frustration shapes her own perception of the scene. The power of pre-conceived knowledge shaping interpretation as in passage 1 is explicitly stated by the authorial voice in passage 2 as Briony concedes “what she saw must have been shaped in part by what she already knew, or thought she knew”. The same is true of Briony being interviewed in passage 3 as she “knew it was him” without seeing him suggesting that the truth itself is irrelevant to the power of preconceived ideas and already “knowing”.
The descriptiveness of passage 1 reveals how meaningless descriptions are without interpretation and hints at the omnipotent power of bias or preconception to subconsciously alter the perception of events, and through this impact upon the actions and behaviour of people. This is ascertained throughout the passages as the perceptions of Briony and the perceptions of Cecilia are shaped by their emotions and what they already believe they know. The descriptive nature of “Atonement” is made meaningless without these biased perceptions and through this McEwan suggests that the world that one perceives is in no way absolute. It is altered by one’s actions and perceptions and these are in turn manipulated by desires and what one already knows.
The power of Briony’s imagination in altering her perceptions is profoundly exhibited throughout passage 2. In her imagination she had already “cast herself as her sister’s protector” and McEwan enumerates the way in which this alters her perception of the library. Briony detecting the “terrified eyes of her sister” directly relates to her imagination. Briony perceives herself to be the hero so naturally Cecilia is terrified of Robbie. This idea is further built upon by Cecilia “raising her arm in protest, or self-defence” as Briony is shown to naively assume that it must be a “hand-to-hand fight”. Through this McEwan expresses that perception is not only influenced profoundly by emotion and knowledge but is also defined by expectation and imagination. The same is seen in passage 3 as Briony “had to understand everything that came her way” once again assuming that through her imagination she can understand everything simply by knowing.
Passage 3 continues to develop the complex ideas of imagination and perception as Briony’s childish ignorance leads her to deciding that knowing something is the same as seeing something. The hesitant repetitive dialogue in passage 3 shows Briony’s childish ignorance at work. She expresses no understanding of the seriousness of what she is doing and admits that she gave a “narrative” in her interrogation. The conviction and repetition of Briony’s dialogue in this passage shows the power of interpretation to influence not only actions but also information or truth. Briony’s answer shifting from “I knew it was him” to “I saw him” and the certainty in which she reinforces this, alludes to the nature of Briony and how her perception is altered by the lens of imagination and childish ignorance. The same over-active imagination is described in passage 2 where Briony explicitly suspects that “her over-anxious imagination had projected the figures onto the packed spines of books” and is witnessed in passage 1 by the over-descriptive imagery of the meaning of the vase.
McEwan continues to develop the ability of perception to alter meaning and the power that childish imagination can have on these perceptions. Throughout the given passages meaning is transformed and adapted to suit to the pre-conceived ideas of the character who is perceiving. McEwan goes even further with the power of an over imaginative child to alter her perceptions believing herself an author. Through this McEwan explores the way in which human nature allows perceptions to be altered and the damage that can be done when the perceptions of an over-imaginative child are taken to be the facts. McEwan makes continual mentions of Briony wanting to satisfy her role as author or heroine and this is shown to doubtlessly alter her narration. McEwan is suggesting that there is no such thing as absolute truth, only amalgamations of perception and interpretation and these are quite subjective. He also suggests that when an imagination is allowed to work unhindered, the presence of perception may be entirely destroyed and the only certain basis for fact may become totally irrelevant.
Two Brothers Passage Analysis
The argumentative tone of passage 1 illustrates the partisan nature of the Benedict family as the conversation shifts from Harry’s lack of a proper job to a embroiling debate about why the “Left is so ineffectual” and the invasion of Iraq. This cliché political debate sets up Eggs and Tom as representing the left and right sides of politics and Angela’s astute observation that they both have “egos the size of Mount Olympus” is thus metaphorical for the self-righteousness of both sides of the political divide. Eggs’ statement about the “difference between a Grammar education and a high school” and his refusal to accept Hazem’s application for asylum, despite accepting that he is “no harm to people” in passage 2 further emphasises a man who has cast out all personality and in effect become nothing but a symbol for the political right. The way in which Tom manipulates Hazem to gain power over Eggs establishes that Tom is in this way no better than Eggs and that both sides of politics are guilty of manipulation. Eggs fanaticism to politics is fully explored in the denouement of “Two Brothers” in passage 3 as Eggs gives Tom the choice between loyalty to his family and loyalty to his cause. To gain this power over Tom, Eggs has destroyed his family relationships causing Tom to mutter “how has this happened to you?”. Through the passages Rayson develops the flaws of both sides of the political debate.
Simultaneously in passage 1 Rayson explores how values and interpretations differ from person to person. Tom’s defence of Harry saying “What Harry has in spades – is empathy” shows that despite not having a job or a grammar education Harry still has values something Eggs is unable to understand. Eggs’ interpretation of the fall of his father’s business and of “being a man” shows how inflexible Eggs is in regards to empathising with an opposing viewpoint. Paradoxically the contradictory viewpoints of Eggs and Tom, Eggs seeing the “terrible threat of mob rule” and goal in “protecting Australia” in passage 1 and 2 respectively as opposed to Tom realising “there’s more to life than being rich” and the importance of “protecting basic human rights” allow Rayson to develop the subjective nature of politics and through it, life. The brother’s own opinions of each other are again explored in passage 3 as Eggs condemns Tom’s value in compassion asking him “where did it get you?” This exploration exposes Eggs’ belief that the means are nothing without the end and despite Tom’s attempt at maintaining humanity it only got him “up shit creek”. This explores the core difference between the left and right of politics and their differing interpretations of the world, whether it is the means or the end that truly deserve to be valued.
Rayson contends that neither side of politics is truly correct and that the reason why Eggs is able to win over Tom is because Eggs values the ends over the means as opposed to Tom attempts to stay true to his family and morals while going about his cause. By juxtaposing the two polar political views in the context of a family in passage 1 and 3 and in Eggs’ office in passage 2 Rayson alludes to the similarities in both sides of the political spectrum and the willingness of both sides to manipulate and dominate the other given the power. The family argument in passage 1 also alludes to the way that neither side fully accepts the argument of the other revealing that both sides are fixed in their interpretations of issues.
Passage 2 depicts the clash between politics and family as Tom and Eggs begin by coolly referring to each other as “Minister” and “Mr Benedict”. The lack of compatibility between family and politics is further developed by Eggs’ unwillingness to be swayed by Hazem’s dedication to his family. Eggs’ mind only changes after the power shifts to Tom presenting that he has no respect for family values. Eggs’ shift of tone to “Tom…” allows the audience to see the slipping of family into the careers of both brothers. The same is seen in passage 1 as Angela refers to Eggs as “Minister” indicating that Eggs has brought his job into his family. Eggs’ willingness to bring family and politics together is elaborated upon further in passage 3 as Eggs attempts to defend his blackmailing of his family by saying “You forget I lost a son” despite later admitting “I couldn’t give a damn about his welfare”. Through Eggs Rayson explores the willingness of political figures to amalgamate their political views and their family values until family values are no longer identifiable.
Fi’s desire to break up the argument in passage 1 is emblematic of more desirable family values, where political debate is seen as an irrelevant topic to the family. Fi’s repetition of “Eggs!” expresses her desire for Eggs’ cliché political right values to be left moved aside for family values. The events of passage 3 demonstrate that Eggs has failed at doing this, choosing to blackmail his family in order to protect his career. Eggs’ statement, “I’ve been keeping an eye on him. More than I can say for your selves” expresses Eggs’ belief that his political motivations are superior to the more family driven motivations of Fi and Ange. Tom’s own clash between family and politics in developed in this scene, in polar contrast to passage 2, this time Eggs holds the power of information and Tom’s decision to protect his son comes from his wife rather than his politics or values. Through this, Rayson elaborates on the inevitable clash between family and politics and whilst Eggs is willing to accept any and all destruction inflicted upon his family Tom is not.
The idea of family being corrupted by the influence of politics is heavily compounded upon by passage 3 and remains a constant in both passage 1 and 2. Throughout “Two Brothers” Rayson explores the inevitable amalgamation between family and politics in high profile political figures’ families, realising that if neither side of the political spectrum is willing to accept, understand or empathise with the viewpoint of the other then the combination of family and politics will merely destroy or corrupt all family values and relationships. Rayson urges her audience to empathise with opposing viewpoints and to try to understand before happily bring politics into a family environment.
Home
Help
Search
Login
