A Quarterly of Criticism and Review i^^^^^^^^fcEjfc $15

Laurence & A t w o o drather what is, as does Wayne C. Booth (8). Ethics does, however, prescribethe desirable when irony enters; Hutcheon locates ethics as the "somethingelse that characterizes irony", beyond the unsaid: "irony involves the attributionof an evaluative, even judgmental attitude" (37). Innocence andguilt can be debated and attributed after the terms of debate are defined;the irony in A Jest of God and Life Before Man shows those qualities in therelationships to emphasize the importance of definition before judgment.In both novels, it is not that the men abuse the women but that their presentationin the development of problem behaviour in the women makesthem appear abusive. At the same time, Laurence and Atwood do not grantthem complete innocence either. It is the distinction between that guilt andinnocence that interests me here, the ambiguity of presence and agency inNick and Nate.The ambiguity of Nick's position is established when Rachel recalls thathis eyes are "seemingly only friendly now, but I remember the mockery inthem from years ago" (62). Nick's seeming friendliness is Laurence's signalthat his mockery continues, and Rachel's failure to see that grounds hermisapprehension of him, especially on the problem of acquiescence to control.Ironically, if much of Rachel's problem with control is situated inpatriarchy, patriarchy's example of control permits her self-control, as whenthe prophetic Murray Lees says that her father '"had the kind of life hewanted most'": Rachel realizes that if'her father "had wanted otherwise, itwould have been otherwise" (124). The realization encourages her to beginliving the life she wants, and despite feeling that "Women shouldn't phonemen" (131), she phones Nick and begins to break the rules that have controlledher life. The realization also situates Nick as enforcing Rachel's continuingneed to break those rules, set primarily by her mother, an ironicagent for patriarchy. Laurence, however, requires that Nick be seen as passivein Rachel's struggle—otherwise, a novel of female independencebecomes, ironically, contingent on male consent.Nick's reticence encourages Rachel to fantasize about him, and her fantasyestablishes the basis for his unwitting control of her. Desperate toescape tradition, she denies the truth of her observation that he "doesn'treveal much. He only appears to talk openly. Underneath, everything isguarded" (85). The denial in the fantasy makes Nick the unwitting delivererof the hard truth to Rachel about her self-deception. When Rachel succumbsto "dramatizing" him in order to make their affair "seem mysterious54