I loved "To Kill a Mockingbird" so much when I read it as a kid. The moral of the story seemed really obvious. In the last few years I came across this article which blew my mind and changed my perspective about the book's meaning a lot: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/10/the-courthouse-...
No one could so thoroughly eviscerate my favorite novel except Malcolm Gladwell. I take his point. His criticism imagines a better hero, one who would righteously proclaim truth. But this is also unfair. Had A.F. done this, he would have lost his stature and surely everything he held precious. This is impossible for most, and it would be unrealistic to write the story in that way. In my view, the work stands strong,…
And the critique of Atticus Finch I don't even take as some kind of heavy-handed moral judgment. The article's byline isn't "Atticus Finch was a bad person," it's "Atticus Finch and the limits of Southern liberalism." A person trying to stand up for the right in this way can do some good (And Jim Folsom did some good). But an accommodating, non-confrontational approach like Atticus will have its limits.
I also don't feel that the article's conclusion implies that people should be 100% uncompromising in their principles all the time. Pragmatically speaking, that's unlikely to maximize the amount of justice in the world.