To Kill A Mockingbird - Harper Lee

turgon

I recently finished To Kill A Mockingbird, I had read it before when I was young but never really understood it.

I think it is an absolutely excellent novel. Lee provides an exiting tale that lets us look at Southern Life in the 30's through the eyes of a child. Thus we get an objective-ish, and fully innocent, view of the racial tensions that predominated.

What do people think are the significance of:

• Boo Radley
• The House Burning Scene
• The Mad Dog Scene
• Ms Dubose - the morphine addict

In my opinion Ms Dubose is a symbol for the southern people. She is at front throughly evil, shouting abuse like "n****r lover" at the children. However the fact that she is really just a morphine addict tells us that Ms Dubose isnt really evil. I think Lee is trying to say that the racism that people had in Alabama wasnt what they truly were at heart. Rather, it was just a symptom of living in such an evil culture. Is the whole story of Ms Dubose a positive?

Yes, even though she dies she 'kicks' the addiction. Lee holds a hope that Southern people can be rid of their racism.

turgon

turgon wrote: »

In my opinion Ms Dubose is a symbol for the southern people...

Wow, thats actually a keen opinion turgon, I never personally considered the wider sociological implications of Ms Dubose's morphine addiction.

As regards the Mad Dog scene, I think its mainly a tool by which to buoy up the god like character that is Atticus Finch. In fact the main problem I would see in Mockinbird is the perfection of Finch, which makes him unrealistic. Obviously the hiding of his shooting skills shows how Finch is dedicated to diplomacy over violence. An admirable trait I would saw.

But I also thing the handing over of the shotgun, from the police man to the lawyer, is symbolic. It shows how the remedy for the Souths woes (the gun being a remedy of the mad dog) lies with the citizens and not the official representatives/organs of the state. Its up to the people to force the state to change because it will not do so on its own accord.




Im telling you people, if no one will discuss books with me here Ill discuss them with myself.

ChewChew

turgon wrote: »

I recently finished To Kill A Mockingbird, I had read it before when I was young but never really understood it.

Same. I never really understood it when I read it in school. in saying that, I was never into books or reading like I am now.

it definiteyl captured and portrayed life in the 30's and issue's with racism. Thoroughly enjoyed the read!

turgon

The House Burning scene seems to tell us that despite the conflict within the neighborhood people will pull together. I think it fits in with Lees' apparent stance that no one is objectively and absolutely evil.

Are there also more subtle messages here? Such as all our lives being intertwined, the spread of fire symbolizing this?

Locamon

turgon wrote: »

Wow, thats actually a keen opinion turgon,

As regards the Mad Dog scene, I think its mainly a tool by which to buoy up the god like character that is Atticus Finch. In fact the main problem I would see in Mockinbird is the perfection of Finch, which makes him unrealistic. Obviously the hiding of his shooting skills shows how Finch is dedicated to diplomacy over violence. An admirable trait I would saw.

Im telling you people, if no one will discuss books with me here Ill discuss them with myself.

Sorry to butt in on your self discussion Turgon but was the mad dog scene not a device to show contrast between what really makes a hero and what his son perceived to be heroic action 'I wanted to show you shooting a mad dog in the street is not courage' -not the exact quote, too long since I read this excellent book.

Certainly one of the must read books of the last century if not all time!

On Ms Dubose maybe just illustrating that people who attack others usually do so because of their own messed up lives not because of any logical reason?

turgon

Locamon wrote: »

but was the mad dog scene not a device to show contrast between what really makes a hero and what his son perceived to be heroic action

Absolutely, and the key fact here is that Atticus never told his children he was the best shot in the town. His priorities are solely diplomatic, which feeds into the way Lee puts him on a pedestal. Do you think Atticus is overly perfect to the extent of unrealism though?

I still think that one can take both interpretations and mix them up. Even if the "symbolic passing of the gun" was not intended by Lee, it certainly fits in with the reality on the ground back in the day, where the Police were a force of bad, not good.

Locamon wrote: »

Certainly one of the must read books of the last century if not all time!

Its actually not that "highly rated" at all, in fact, it seems to be treated with a sort of dismissiveness. Perhaps critics find it too easy to read, and to easy to understand, and not complex enough. Which, given the context of being a literary critic, is probably understandable.

But whatever about them, I think it is excellent.

Locamon wrote: »

On Ms Dubose maybe just illustrating that people who attack others usually do so because of their own messed up lives not because of any logical reason?

Certainly. I mentioned that she is probably the most evil women in the book, yet her evil is effectively superficial. Its has nothing to do with her heart, and therein lies the hope. As I said, the fact she breaks the addiction seems to be a positive outlook on the future.

DublinWriter

turgon wrote: »

Do you think Atticus is overly perfect to the extent of unrealism though?

You have to filter that through the fact that Scout is recalling her father as a child through the narrative dialogue, of course she's going to idealise him.

turgon

Thats a good point.

I also think the fact he has obvious deficiencies in bringing up the kids shows a level of realism. The scene where he tried to implement the Aunt's justice but feel flat on his face is evidence of this pervades.

Locamon

turgon wrote: »

Its actually not that "highly rated" at all, in fact, it seems to be treated with a sort of dismissiveness. Perhaps critics find it too easy to read, and to easy to understand, and not complex enough. Which, given the context of being a literary critic, is probably understandable.

Maybe it is dismissed by the critics because they don't believe Lee wrote it...
a debate that has raged for some time.
However to my recollection it has turned up on every must read list I have come across BBC, Guardian etc.

turgon

The Modern Library excluded it.


Didnt Truman Capote claim, albeit indirectly, to have written part of it?
I suppose the fact she never wrote another novel might add credence to the view.

Locamon

my understanding is that most critics expect Lee to admit Capote wrote it and there have been a few stories over the years saying the admission is imminent but nothing has come of it.

turgon

The wiki on it seems to say otherwise. I dont know. That would be hugely controversial if it was true.

Locamon

turgon wrote: »

The wiki on it seems to say otherwise. I dont know. That would be hugely controversial if it was true.

it would be and I am not saying it is true just one of those discussions that come up from time to time fueled by the author's failure to have a follow up...
but we all know the Joseph Heller response to why he never had a better book than Catch 22... neither has anyone else!

On Atticus I liked DublinWriter's point that this is the story from a child's point of view -seeing things in a simple way but being introduced to the more complex issues in life, realising things are not as they first appear, that the society we grow up in shouldn't just be accepted as being right.

OneArt

I could never get into that book. I thought it was long, drawn-out and incredibly boring. Harper Lee describes things that aren't even bloody relevant, and just goes on and ON. It got to a point where I was reading the words but not even paying attention it was that dull...

The most unenjoyable book I've ever had the displeasure to read.

turgon

OneArt wrote: »

Harper Lee describes things that aren't even bloody relevant, and just goes on and ON.

Well perhaps the key to understanding the novel is to discover their relevance, as I have tried to do above.

Locamon

OneArt wrote: »

I could never get into that book. I thought it was long, drawn-out and incredibly boring. Harper Lee describes things that aren't even bloody relevant, and just goes on and ON. It got to a point where I was reading the words but not even paying attention it was that dull...

The most unenjoyable book I've ever had the displeasure to read.

Well that just illustrates the joy of reading -what for one person is hell is another's pure joy:) All about finding the right book for you -just because you found it unenjoyable in no way takes from the fact it is a great book to other people.

deisedude

turgon wrote: »

The Modern Library excluded it.


Didnt Truman Capote claim, albeit indirectly, to have written part of it?
I suppose the fact she never wrote another novel might add credence to the view.

I dont believe Capote wrote it. Capote although i admire the man for his books was a narcissist and he probably believed he was more of an inspiration to Harper Lee than he actually was

meganj

Well they were fantastic friends and Dill is based on Capote, I think its hard for an author to have a friendship with someone like Capote who wrote numerous fantastically received books and to only write one and then turn into a recluse.

It's one of my favourite books, my mother's too, she cries every time she reads it. I just read the wiki link there about the controversy surrounding it, first regarding the immorality of using rape as a narrative tool and then secondly because it's not damming enough against racism.

I suppose my favourite thing about it is Atticus. In addition to this I love how it's written from Scout's childish perspectives, it makes me think of my own childhood and brings back fond and not so fond memories.

tyrocks00

OneArt wrote: »

I could never get into that book. I thought it was long, drawn-out and incredibly boring. Harper Lee describes things that aren't even bloody relevant, and just goes on and ON. It got to a point where I was reading the words but not even paying attention it was that dull...

The most unenjoyable book I've ever had the displeasure to read.

I hate to agree but I do.......I think this novel is highly overrated and it was even more painful to sit thru the movie in my high school English class many years back. Tons of symbolism but just not so fun to read.

AJG

Thought the book was pretty average. The Finch kids were do-gooder nerds and you could see the conclusion a mile off.

DublinWriter

tyrocks00 wrote: »

I hate to agree but I do.......I think this novel is highly overrated and it was even more painful to sit thru the movie in my high school English class many years back. Tons of symbolism but just not so fun to read.

I found parts tedious and drawn out too, but I think a lot of that was down to HL's narrative style trying to invoke the feeling of a lazy, sleepy southern backwater.

Strange she wrote nothing else.

'The Little Friend' by Donna Tartt is along similar lines, but a much more modern novel in the same 'Southern Gothic' style.

secman

I have tried to read that book on 3 occasions, years apart just in case as I matured , but to no avail. Just could not get into it.


secman

wayhey

AJG wrote: »

Thought the book was pretty average. The Finch kids were do-gooder nerds and you could see the conclusion a mile off.

"do-gooder nerds" ahahahahaha brilliant!

I liked the book when we did it for our Junior... yeah maybe it's a bit boring in parts but I liked the setting. And oh god ignore the first 10 pages or so they don't make sense (all the Finch ancestry) it only makes sense once you finish the book and go back to it. Yeah it's a bad literary technique to catch readers but awesome when you HAVE to read it