Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 12:11 AM
Wed Dec 16
67 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/05/09
However, Atticus attempts to treat all people with dignity including the Cunningham family that Aunt Alexandra identifies as "trash" and refuse to give up their land. I believe he even addresses the poor Ewell girl as "Miss Mayella" and "ma'am" which upsets her and makes her feel like she is being ridiculed since no one has ever treated her with common decency before. Atticus, because of his compassion, is able to see her as another victim. Also, he wants to see her treated like everyone else, in spite of being a Ewell.
The decision to cover up Boo's involvement in saving the children does contradict with Atticus's devotion to the truth and refusal to adhere to the lies that underlie small town southern society (such as since Tom is accused he must be convicted). In a sense, he does seem to be compromising his values. However, it can be again viewed as an act of compassion. Or perhaps that Bob Ewell is less deserving of the truth than other characters therefore giving some validity to Gladwell's class theory.
Gladwell's class based reading of the novel does has some merit, and the Ewells are depicted as the lowest of the social order, except for the color of their skin. As readers, we come to regard them as the very bottom of the social order. Also, the good characters that realize the entire trial is racially motivated seem to be of the upper class or those with some education (Judge Taylor, Heck Tate, Miss Maddie, the prosecutor, Link Deas). The rest of the Atticus's social peers that support the conviction are busybody town ladies. The conversion of the less educated country Cunninghams to Atticus's side and the side of the law demonstrates there is hope for change. However, Atticus isn't motivated by money when he decides to agree with the coverup and instead agrees to it out of decency and compassion.
08/05/09
I think Lee set out to write a story about the realities of human rights in a place where cameras weren't likely to go, where the community wasn't likely to march in the streets or get bitten by police dogs. She wanted to put another face on those who fought for civil rights, in quieter ways than the ones we see in newspapers and TV. That book is required reading in public schools in Alabama, and that, I think, is a victory for civil rights.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
People did not appreciate the book when it was released. Alabamians, I'm sure, felt it stigmatized their state, and for good reason. But everyone I talked to in Monroeville appreciated, in the long run, what Lee tried to show. Changing minds and hearts takes a long time, and that book did its job.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
Another point that I think has to be made: TKAM is a brilliant portrait of how claustrophobic and tunnel-visioned life in a small town was back in those days. People knew little of what went on elsewhere, unless they had a pretty good education, a radio and access to a national or big-city newspaper.
08/05/09
His analysis of the novel was ridiculous. It doesn't appear he would have been happy with anything less than Atticus Finch destroying Jim Crow single-handedly. However, he fails to consider that a lot of good people in this world have died useless deaths because they chose to fight injustice in a stupid manner.
This just further supports my opinion that Gladwell likes generating controversy more than he cares about responsible analysis.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
Besides, the point of that scene is to illustrate that the law and logic had failed in the face of overwhelming, systemic bigotry. Atticus, as the personification of law/logic, has been defeated. He walks out feeling the weight of his failure - and Tom's fate - on his shoulders. It is not a moment of action, but of retreat.
(My apologies for the English major geekfest. While I was composing it you all went on to much funnier things. Gladwell car shopping - hee!)
08/05/09
08/05/09
I really hope this Gladwell thing actually gets people to analyze it and maybe do some serious work on the novel which has never been done before.
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
Part of why I bring this up is merely to point out that work is being done (much more so than on some other more classic "literary" novels, like say some Trollope or Hardy stuff, honestly), it just isn't always made known or available to the public, to educators, etc. And that's the crux of a whole other problem, of course...
08/05/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
One of the things that was bugging me about Gladwell's critique is that he doesn't pay any attention to the use of narrative. It's not Lee's opinion of Atticus we get in the narrative, it's the opinion of a young Scout as filtered through the perspective of the older Scout who is the narrator. Atticus is a hero to Scout, because he makes a personal stand for Justice and because he is her Father and she idolizes him and learns right and wrong from him.
Also, we need both the structural change and the change in hearts and minds. One isn't complete without the other. It seems silly to condemn a fictional lawyer for not being a great and influential politician, just as it seems silly to complain that Atticus Finch isn't as great as his precocious daughter thinks he is (particularly when part of the point of the book is that the daughter starts to understand that he is only human).
08/05/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
Harper Lee created this character. He isn't coloured by the lens through which she saw him; he IS what she created. I'm aware that literature is open to interpretation and the death of the author and all that. But to try and completely re-interpret the creation of a character is silly.
I don't think it is fair to accuse Finch of using unfair techniques to defend Tom Robinson. He wasn't 'implying' that Mayella 'deserved it' or 'wanted it'. His defense was that she came on to him and that even through that nothing happened. He didn't say Tom Robinson raped Mayella because she deserved it, he said he DIDN'T rape her at all. And that IF sexual things had happened they would have been consensual. Tom knew what touching Mayella would have ment for him and he ran, literally, in the other direction.
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
A "she wanted it" doesn't defense doesn't make sense. She didn't really want sex, she just wanted a kiss. Once being caught she did anything to detatch herself from the stigma of kissing a black man, even it meant murdering him.
Atticus wasn't capable of leading a revolution & he knew it wasn't his place. I believe (but don't quote me) that in the book he mentions that people have to want to change, you can't force things on them suddenly. He wasn't the "white savior of black people" & people shouldn't interpret him as that. He was a man who did the right thing when no one else would. He fought the small fights, he wasn't the right person to fight the big war.
I think Gladwell is just misinterpreting Atticus actual power. You can judge past actions through modern eyes.