21–30 of 176 posts
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-...
To Kill A Mockingbird is still one of my all time favorite books and movies. Sad news. Has anyone read the newly released book? Thoughts?
She wrote it whilst being urged on by several friends and when she took it to her agent was told that she had some good ideas, but it was stronger in some parts than others. She should focus entirely on Scout's youth, and to deal with Atticus' battle with racial tensions in that town.
She went away, produced Mockingbird, the rest is history. You can see the process right there in Watchman.
If you try and read them as a pair, you will get annoyed: anecdotes repeated in both have key facts changed that change their meaning and the characters involved in them.
It's not as polished, tuned or as well paced as Mockingbird. It's a piece of work that pays testament to a talented writer finding her voice, but hasn't quite found it yet.
And for that, it's fine. But don't read it if you aren't interested in the writing process and just want a good story: just re-read Mockingbird instead.
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-...
Care to provide an abstract of that article?
the tl;dr is:
The lawyer isn't really that good a role model. He gets a black man off of a rape charge mostly by attacking the alleged victim's character. He can't bring himself to hate a white man that wants to lynch that same black man, or indeed even Hitler. In the end he conspires with the sheriff to obstruct justice when a nice middle class white man kills a poor white man.
In this way he reflect the actual time and place, where people who could in some respects be seen as liberal and generous, like the governer at that time, weren't actually doing anything to achieve true equality (whether black/white, male/female, rich/poor) and when racial matters came to a head they got swept aside as the core issue was never dealt with from within and had a solution forced on them from outside.
I get the feeling the author was trying to be a little contrarian, but still brings up lots of interesting details and examples, particularly with hindsight from the present.
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-...
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, as it has weathered many assaults, this latest included. Other favorites of mine have toppled.
Author ONLY of "to kill a mockingbird" (seriously, she only ever wrote one book, weirdness)
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-...
Care to provide an abstract of that article?
A second and fascinating point deals with the trial in the book. I always read it as Atticus patiently but relentlessly exposing the obvious truth, which was that Bob Ewell beat up Mayella for daring to touch a black man. The article makes the case for a different interpretation, and offers historical support for it by citing scholars who have explored many historical cases of black-on-white rape.
I don't fully subscribe to every last conclusion of the article, but it did shift my thinking and expand my perspective about the book dramatically.
That is one of my favorite quotes of all times, specifically taking into account the setting of the book.
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,…
However you approach her second novel, it's worth the read to understand her outlook on life in the South.