Harper Lee

Denerick

I don't know if many read the newspapers as much as I do, but Harper Lee is getting quite a bit of coverage at the moment in the run up to the 50th anniversary of 'To Kill a Mockingbird'.

I was surprised she was even alive! It goes without saying that To Kill a Mockingbird is one of my favourite all time novels.

Like J.D. Salinger she has lived the life of a recluse since her big hit. She never could understand the reaction, as she always said 'I just told a story'. Apparantly she has been writing for herself ever since, and there could be a raft of posthumous publications. An exciting prospect if it turns out to be true, as I was flabbergasted after reading her one and only book that she hadn't written any others. I can only assume this is because she probably couldn't handle the public love, and feared that a second novel would be pilloried (Some literary critics are absolutely retarded in certain respects)

Anyway... Rambling post... Any thoughts?

MarchDub

This article in the LA Times includes a fairly recent photo of her.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2010/06/reclusive-harper-lee-speaks-to-british-reporter.html

Eliot Rosewater

Harper Lee is an interesting case. To Kill A Mockingbird appears to have been rejected by the literary classes: it doesn't feature, for example, in the Modern Library's top 100 list. I don't know why this is. I think To Kill A Mockingbird is a fantastic book, and there's depth in it too.

At one of the English Lit meetings in UCC we were talking about JD Salinger and his reclusion; one of the people there said that he had heard that Harper Lee had simply dried up (a 50 year long writer's block, if you will). I can't verify that.

And there was also that debacle whereby Truman Capote tried to claim credit for writing To Kill A Mockingbird!

epgc3fyqirnbsx

I am someone who reads a quite a lot of books, but am smart enough to know that a lot of what I read probably goes over my head, hidden meanings etc.

That said, I do love most of the critically acclaimed books. But this one has always puzzled me, I mean I loved it, it had a great pace and an illustrative style that helped me picture all that was there. But I fail to see why it was such a classic. And the purpose of Boo Radley went over my head. Though maybe he didn't have a purpose per se, but was just part of the story?

After writing this I have realised that the best thing I could do would be to find a critical analysis that would clear up any such wonderings I had on the text. But that also has me thinking that I often spoil modern books in the assumption that there is a hidden greater meaning

For example, I can enjoy the entire Dickens collection moreso than McCarthys The Road for the simple fact that I keep thinking that maybe I am meant to see more than the potetial misery of a dystopian future.

Apologies for sidetracking, it is late, but are there volumes that I am missing in To Kill a Mocking Bird or is it just a celecration of a fantastically written text?

Denerick

I think Boo Radley represents the unknown more than anything else. The children mock him, create elaborate plays about him and speculate about his life. They fear him, consider him an oddball. Then when he saves the children at the end, and the protagonist realises that he was a good skin all along, its a redemptive eulogy about the hidden goodness in every man, the folly of making judgements without any evidence, (This would tie in very nicely with the character of Atticus - another great literary creation who has blessed the world by his very existance - and his pursuit of the law, justice, and truth in the face of adversity) and a wonderful contrast to the dirty, corrupt and hideously unjust world in which they live.

To Kill a Mockingbird is the best book I've ever read, and I've read a lot of classics!

Eliot Rosewater

Exactly! I think he's also there to add a bit of perspective to the racist society. This is Jem speaking at the end of chapter 23:

Scout, I think I'm beginning to understand something. I think I'm beginning to understand why Boo Radley's stayed shut up in the house all the time ... it's because he wants to stay inside.

This kind of reinforces the ignorance of the prejudice both the children and the reader had towards Boo Radley. In reality, he seems to be the only one so disgusted by the racism and the prejudices of the South that he would remove himself from it.


There are some really great characters in To Kill A Mockingbird. One of the most interesting, for me, was Ms Dubose. When we first encounter her she is described by the children as the most evil women that could ever live. By the end we realise that that evil wasn't of her making, but rather that it was a consequence of her morphine addiction. I think she is symbolic of the racism most people in the South held. It wasn't really their fault, but rather the fault of the culture and the society in which they grew up and the values of which they (as fallible human beings) inherited. When Ms Dubose kicks the addiction and dies it's really a happy ending: Harper Lee is predicting that Southern people will eventually get over their "addiction" to racism.

Sabscababs

I agree, it's a wonderful book that really rewards the reader, if I may sound like a bit of a drip! Also, I find it's one that the film stays relatively true to as well, and seeing Atticus come to life on screen through Gregory Peck has to be one of the greatest performances to watch, in my humble opinion.

Anyone ever heard of the band The Boo Radleys? Love their song, 'Wake up Boo', or 'Wake up, Boo', whichever it's meant to be. I love spin-offs from the greats.

Leslie91

Just read it for the 1st time without knowing the story (believe it or not). For whatever reason though I wasn't blown away like I expected to be. Gona get the DVD out now.