The only thing she did was tell the original lie
Yes, without which none of what followed would have happened.
If a couple had an argument and then the lady ran off in distress and got hit by a car would her partner be responsible even though they set in motion a chain of actions, no they wouldn't, the same can be said for Briony.
I'm sure he would think he was. But the difference between your incident and Briony's is your incident isn't a crime and doesn't require any outside force except the fender of a car. Briony witnessed an actual crime, the rape of Lola, and then identified the wrong person and never wavered from it for an entire trial (that we never saw). The social order rose up in all its power to bear its full weight on Robbie. It collectively threw a laborer under the bus to protect the aristocracy.
I don't think there's any doubt at all of McEwan's intentions of indicting that system so in that regard you are right.
But Briony simply fits into that system and used it, even if unconsciously, to punish Robbie for not loving her back when she was 11, among other reasons.
No, Cecilia didn't have to leave the family, but don't you admire her for doing so?
And yes, Briony is responsible for sending Robbie off to war in the manner he was sent. If Briony hadn't opened her mouth he more than likely would have continued his studies and become a doctor. Once the war started he would have entered as an officer or doctor, which would have afforded him other opportunities. But because of Briony, he was a criminal. He had no opportunities and ended up traipsing around France as a BEF grunt, something he would never have done otherwise.
It's not really even a question of where Cecilia was when she was drowned. Yes, she could have chosen differently, but she wouldn't have had to if not for Briony.
Don't get me wrong. I'm intoxicated by Briony, To me, she is the most interesting, complex character in English literature, greater than Elizabeth Bennett, Jane Eyre or Lady Macbeth.
But she really fuycked up the works.
reply
share
Pheebshirl
8 years ago
Yes, without which none of what followed would have happened.
I can understand what you are saying but a person can only be responsible for their own actions and what they have actually done, they cannot be responsible for the actions of others. There were plenty of other people whose actions doomed Robbie, not just Briony, which she cannot be held account for (her parents for believing the lie despite knowing Robbie and Briony, the corrupt legal system, Lola also lying, Paul allowing Robbie to go down for his crime, the unlucky coincidence that the war happened at the same time).
I'm sure he would think he was. But the difference between your incident and Briony's is your incident isn't a crime and doesn't require any outside force except the fender of a car. Briony witnessed an actual crime, the rape of Lola, and then identified the wrong person and never wavered from it for an entire trial (that we never saw). The social order rose up in all its power to bear its full weight on Robbie. It collectively threw a laborer under the bus to protect the aristocracy.
Whether a crime is committed or it is just an outside force a person cannot be held responsible for events out of their control, especially a naive child that was not even aware she was committing a crime. The film confuses the situation with the scene where Briony sees Paul attacking Lola (I don't know why this was put in as it makes Briony look nastier than she is). In the book it is made clear that Briony never saw who attacked Lola, all she saw was a black figure running away. Due to the earlier events that had convinced Briony that Robbie was a "sex maniac" (seeing him order Cecilia into the fountain, him "attacking" her in the library) and probably a bit of jealousy, Briony genuinely believed that Robbie was guilty when she told her lie. As a child she thought she was doing the right thing and saving everyone and would not have realized the enormity of what she was doing. It was up to the parents and adults to sit down and talk through with Briony what she had thought she had seen (Cecilia included), but this did not appear to ever happen in the book or film. If Cecilia had have sat and talked to her sister it may have all been cleared up very quickly, but instead she shouted at everyone and than never spoke to them again.
Did Briony actually testify at the trial. It is never mentioned whether she did or not. Or was her original testimony used?.
No, Cecilia didn't have to leave the family, but don't you admire her for doing so?
And yes, Briony is responsible for sending Robbie off to war in the manner he was sent. If Briony hadn't opened her mouth he more than likely would have continued his studies and become a doctor. Once the war started he would have entered as an officer or doctor, which would have afforded him other opportunities. But because of Briony, he was a criminal. He had no opportunities and ended up traipsing around France as a BEF grunt, something he would never have done otherwise.
It's not really even a question of where Cecilia was when she was drowned. Yes, she could have chosen differently, but she wouldn't have had to if not for Briony.
Cecilia leaving the family is likely to have further prolonged/caused what happened to Robbie. If she had have hung around and actually tried to get to the bottom of what happened and spoke to Briony, than maybe the truth might have come out.
Again Briony cannot be held responsible for Robbie being sent to war or being seen as a criminal. The adults/aristocracy are more responsible for this as they were the ones who convicted Robbie on very little evidence. Lola's testimony that Robbie was the attacker was also pretty damning, probably more so than Briony's testimony. Robbie was likely to have been sent to war anyways and even if he was an officer or doctor it is still likely that he may have been killed.
Cecilia drowning also cannot in anyway be attributed to Briony. It was a number of years after the incident and she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If Cecilia had have been hit by a bus would it have been Briony's fault or if she had choked on a sweet.
I agree that Briony is a very complex and interesting character. In terms of the book, she holds herself totally responsible for what happened. In my opinion it is just too simplistic to place all the blame on Briony. Especially when you consider how young and unaware of the world she was.
I love Pugs!
reply
share
jlent
8 years ago
I find myself at a bit of a loss here because usually I'm the one defending Briony against those who think boiling her in oil is too good for her. (And I'm ALWAYS the one pointing out that in the novel Briony never saw who attacked Lola. That's one of my jobs here. )
That being said, I think our differences boil down to legal vs. moral. If Briony's actions were actionable, so to speak, any decent lawyer could have gotten her off on every one of them.
But there is no trial for Briony, except in the court of public opinion, and there she tends to lose rather badly.
I don't think Robbie, had he lived, would have bought the "adults let her down" theory, and Celia, whose pricklier in the novel than she is in the movie, I doubt would have countenanced the idea she bore some responsibility for what happened by not working hard enough to try to right things herself. Why is it her responsibility? It's Briony's lie. Celia told the police not to believe her.
You make it sound like Briony just did some little thing and all the adults around her conspired to make her ghastly version the one that stuck. And didn't Lola suck?
Briony did a big thing, a VERY big thing (and all the adults around her conspired to make her ghastly version the one that stuck. Lola still sucks.)
Briony told a lie that got two people she loved dearly killed. Even if God above exonerated Briony completely, and surely he would, Briony being a child when it all happened, Briony would still know that had she told the truth about what she saw that night both Robbie and Cee might have even been alive at that last-chapter birthday party.
reply
share
Pheebshirl
8 years ago
I don't think Robbie, had he lived, would have bought the "adults let her down" theory, and Celia, whose pricklier in the novel than she is in the movie, I doubt would have countenanced the idea she bore some responsibility for what happened by not working hard enough to try to right things herself. Why is it her responsibility? It's Briony's lie. Celia told the police not to believe her.
You make it sound like Briony just did some little thing and all the adults around her conspired to make her ghastly version the one that stuck. And didn't Lola suck?
Briony did a big thing, a VERY big thing (and all the adults around her conspired to make her ghastly version the one that stuck. Lola still sucks.)
Briony told a lie that got two people she loved dearly killed. Even if God above exonerated Briony completely, and surely he would, Briony being a child when it all happened, Briony would still know that had she told the truth about what she saw that night both Robbie and Cee might have even been alive at that last-chapter birthday party.
I am not denying that Briony did an awful thing (even if she did not realize the extent of what she had done). What I disagree with is that her lie killed Cecilia and Robbie. It did not in any way. Cecilia was killed in a bomb shelter years later, the only person responsible for her death would be the bomber that bombed the train station. Yes, Briony's lie may have cause her to be separated from the family (though that was also partly due to Cecilia's stubbornness, which as I have wrote previously likely played a part in the situation not being cleared up), but Briony cannot be held responsible for all the decisions that Cecilia made in the years that followed (choosing to be a nurse, going to that particular air raid shelter.etc.). The same can be said for Robbie. It was illness (septicaemia) and the war that killed him, not Briony, her lie may have got him into trouble in the first place but she cannot be held responsible for the punishments that others placed upon Robbie or events that were totally out of her control (the horrors and experiences of war). I can understand when people argue that her lie broke the lovers apart and agree with this, but blaming their deaths on her is maybe going a bit far.
In terms of Cecilia, it just seemed she could have done more from what was shown in the novel. Briony was her sister and she would have known what Briony had have seen and should have understood that this would have been traumatic for her. I know if Briony had have been my sister and the same thing had happened I would have been constantly trying to talk to her about what happened and find out why she had lied. Instead Cecilia appears to just scream abuse at Briony and than never speak to her again. This left Briony confused and didn't clear up the situation at all. Whether it was her responsibility or not, if she loved Robbie and Briony she should have done her best to get to the bottom of the situation. By running off and not talking to her family she would have allowed the whole charade to continue (out of sight out of mind), whilst if she had have stayed behind and really pushed Robbie's innocence than there would have come a time when they couldn't have ignored her (hopefully not anyway). Maybe it is a sign of the times that they lived in, but I could not imagine nowadays if a child made an untrue allegation that the appropriate response would be to scream at them and than not speak to them again.
I am not trying to be argumentative, sorry if it seems that way. I enjoy reading other people's perspectives and sharing mine. The great thing about the novel is how it can be interpreted in so many different ways.
I love Pugs!
reply
share
jlent
8 years ago
I thnk you are asking a lot of Cecilia. The two sisters never got along well and after Briony fingered the man she loved it would take a better person than most of us are to put aside our own feelings and become crusaders for truth.
BTW, can we agree on one thing, that Briony's certainty Robbie did it was the cause of him being taken to jail, at least for that one night? (Actually, I can hear your voice saying no, it was only one night of investigation, police should have investigated more thoroughly.)
Again, I think I our differences are technical. Of course Briony didn't pull the trigger on either of them, but if she had never told her lie the question would have never come up. It was more than just the butterfly effect. Adults let her down, surely, but if she had kept her mouth shut she wouldn't have had to worry about it. She needed to own her shyt, and because she ended up "writing the book," she did what she thought she needed to. WE can take what we want from her narrative, and I certainly forgive her, not that I'm really in a position to do so.
Others will say and have said she's a raging narcissist making the story all about her to convince people like you it wasn't her fault. That's what gives rise to that "boiling in oil" comment I mentioned before. For me it's the added flat scene in which both Robbie and Cee tell her off that tells me she's not really a narcissist; she's letting them give her the comeuppance she so richly deserves and knows she does. That Robbie and Cee are both already dead can't be helped, though it does gum up the works.
The whole thing is a mess. But as a literary creation - this is fiction, after all - it's marvelous.
reply
share