The book in a sense is all about different standards and the difficulty of equality. From the very beginning of the novel Atticus tells Scout that the Ewells don't have to go to school because they belong to a society specifically made up of Ewells but Scout is of "the common people" and therefore has to go to school.
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.
Why do I get the feeling Gladwell has never visited the South, let alone lived there? Atticus Finch's reaction to the outcome of the trial is less Jim Crow than just pure defeat and sadness, as someone downthread has already pointed out. Not everyone fighting for civil rights marched in the streets, sat at lunch counters or spent a night in jail. Some of them worked from within the system because they knew their position as a pillar of the community gave them an opportunity to lead by example and enact change from their places of power. Yes, Finch could have railed against the system, but he chose to live to fight another day, because he knew there would always be another fight. He was a product of the times and recognized the reality of civil rights in a small town in Alabama.
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.
@hollygirl: I've lived on the West Coast and now live in Alabama. I've been to Monroeville, where Harper Lee set To Kill a Mockingbird. Yeah, there is plenty to hate about this state in terms of basic human decency toward people of another color (hell, of another gender, even) but sometimes the reality of civil rights when you're in the belly of the beast looks a lot different than it appears on TV or history books. There were a lot of Atticus Finches here doing quiet work in quiet ways, and I would argue their efforts were just as heart-felt and soul-crushing as those who marched.
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.
@willwriteforfood: Do you feel that i was not agreeing with you? Because I do. Hope you didn't feel the need to explain yourself further because of my supportive( I thought) comment. My grandmother is from Charleston, SC and I hope I can claim some understanding of the complexities of north-south stuff. I really liked what you said, and made my own gladwell-critical comments in the discussion yesterday.
@hollygirl: Oh no! I wasn't criticizing your comment, just continuing my thought. Sorry if it came across as combative or something similar. I definitely appreciated your comment.
I think Gladwell has run out of ideas (or did about two books ago) and is coasting.
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.
My first intuition is that Gladwell is one of those sneering Manhattanites who can't give anyone south of Delaware credit for basic decency or intelligence. I do hope I am mistaken.
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.
@Gavagirl: Plus he takes issue with Atticus' exit from the courtroom as a sort of "whatever" attitude to racial equality, I always took it as a moment of deep deep sadness towards society. The kind of sadness that just crushes you.
@bluebears: Right! Sadness, or so much disgust with people he couldn't say anything at all. Or maybe he had to step outside before he said something that might end up offending the jury to the point that they'd be ready to convict the defendant just to spite Atticus Finch. I don't see any reason Gladwell would jump to some other conclusion unless he had some weird bias to begin with.
@Gavagirl: It was such an odd reading of that scene. Perhaps Gladwell is one of those people who wails and gnashes his teeth at funerals in order to prove how distraught he is?
@bluebears: Agreed. Atticus's exit was completely in line with his character. He did not "brim with rage" because that was not in the character's nature. He is presented throughout as calm, logical, and low key, even in anger. The only thing that leaves him visibly shaken is the attack against his children (which again is in keeping with his character). For him to explode in a rage at that moment just would not have made sense.
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!)
So after the last discussion on this, I went on Wikipedia to refresh my memory. Apparently, there has never been a long dissertation on Mockingbird and there have only been a handful of short academic papers.
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.
@Zombie Ms. Skittles: The fact that no one has written a dissertation on this really surprises me. I would have thought To Kill A Mockingbird would have been analyzed to death, what with it being part of the cannon of American lit and all.
@Zombie Ms. Skittles: I understand why serious work hasn't been done: it's not a particularly scholarly book. Not to say it isn't wonderful, but it's rather straightforward. I think analysis to the level of Gladwell and others of his ilk goes BEYOND the "words on the page" scholarship I myself am a fan of and into speculative territory. (I also don't think Gladwell had a particularly valid point--something to think about, yes, but I disagreed.)
@LaComtesse: Right. Its not exactly The Sound and the Fury. I thought the Gladwell piece was...a bit silly actually. Not to say that there can be no discussion about this book but his point that there were undercurrents of classism in the book was like, "...ok? and?" I just didn't understand the LARGER point he was trying to make in pointing that out.
@Zombie Ms. Skittles: There's also been only one biography of Harper Lee. I feel like a lot of academic papers rely heavily on the lives of the author to guide them; perhaps that has something to do with it?
@bluebears: His larger point, if indeed there was one, seemed to be "Atticus isn't all that great so all of you who love this book and character are lame. While I, Malcolm Gladwell, am an 'Outlier' GENIUS."
@Zombie Ms. Skittles: Actually, a "handful" of academic papers isn't completely accurate-- MLA International Bibliography lists over 56 scholarly journal and book articles on Mockingbird, a lot of them with some interesting takes on the book (and over half of them published just in the last three years-- yay for updated scholarship!). You're right about there not being a single extended published study on it, but it has been looked at in a couple dissertations/theses alongside other relevant novels, which in my experience is the way a lot of diss.es are structured.
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...
@dianersb was bit by a zombie: Yes, but it's "Children's Literature" and thus still not considered properly worthy of a full scholarly treatment. We're only recently getting in depth stuff on Lewis Carroll and L. Frank Baum.
@lurkerbynature: I don't think anyone considers TKAMB children's literature. It's taken seriously: it even won the Pulitzer. I really just don't think it's a particularly complicated book--what can scholars really say about it that the book itself doesn't state itself.
@hopeleslie: That's good to hear. I last taught it around four years ago, and I had a heck of a time finding secondary reading for my students.
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).
But hold on it - it wasn't the "she wanted it" defense to rape, because in this case, there actually wasn't a rape. She was the sexual aggressor. Should Tom Robinson have been convicted so she wasn't made to own up to her sexual aggression? Surely the better answer is that she shouldn't have been despised and ashamed for her lust!
Erm, the "she wanted it" defense is a faulty defense for rape, but no rape occurred here. Finch wasn't saying "she wanted it, so whatever happened was ok," it was that "she wanted him, and they both knew he couldn't do anything about it." Sorry if someone else already pointed that out--I was irritated and wanted to comment asap.
"leading some to question whether Atticus Finch is really the champion of equality Harper Lee makes him out to be."
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.
Bravo, that novel was painful to read on may levels. Atticus was never a hero in my mind and I could never figure why this novel was so celebrated. I personally felt it was an observation in prejudice not a novel of great heroic feets. I agree with Gladwells synopsis whole heartedly.
I'm so sick of Malcolm Gladwell and his too-clever-by-half, ultimately kind of meaningless musings on the world. Yeah, the world was fucked up then and it still is- go try write something half as resonant as TKAMB yourself.
Very interesting analysis, but I don't think it diminishes Atticus Finch's character as much as it complexifies (is that a word? it should be) him. Almost no one is all good or all bad or all anything, and characters that come across as being that black-and-white ring often seem suspect (to me, at least) because no one is like that. So if anything, it makes the story a bit more realistic, because it gives a fuller picture of what Southern society was really like back it the day.
@whynotshesaid: Also, this makes me want to re-read TKAMB. But first, I need to finish The Cider House Rules, which, by the way, is FANTASTIC. How did this book sit on my shelf for nine years without me picking it up?
I personally always found the distinction between the Ewells and the Cunninghams to be the most interesting; one is a poor but 'noble' Southern family (although Mr Cunningham does show up at the gaol where Tom is being held), meanwhile the other is poor, ignorant white trash...
The way I read it, TKAMB was more about Atticus as a father than it was about his views on racism. The trial only ends up being a small part of the book, and most of the novel is about Scout and her relationship with Atticus. I always felt that the ideals of racial equality Atticus seems to support are lumped in with the many other moral ideals he upholds. The emphasis was always on Atticus as a good human being with real flaws and no large ambitions, but that is what made him such a great father. If he was off protesting and changing the world, he would not be present to guide, teach, and love Scout and Jem as he so wonderfully does.
Harper Lee was greatly influenced by the Scottsboro Boys Trial when she wrote TKAMB. The Scottsboro trail concerned two poor, white women who falsely accused a group of black youths of rape.
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.
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.