""To Kill a Mockingbird" fans in a tizzy!" Topic

link

They are worse than Game of Thrones fans. So it seems.
Some are having the vapours over Atticus Finch not being a 100% saintly figure.
They are shocked SHOCKED that the author could take control of THEIR figure and develop him in ways they do not like.

Did they ever stop to think that he was a LAWYER, and did his best to follow legal ethics? Does John Adams and the Boston Massacre come to mind?
Or how about Abraham Lincoln wanting to ship freed slaves back to Africa?
Childishness. Cannot accept that a character can have many dimensions.
Good people can have bad thoughts, and bad people can do good things.

Aren't they novels?

You would think, wouldn't you?

Interesting take here:
link

Pretty much everyone names Mockingbird as their favorite book. Often, I think, they lie. They haven't read the book. They have seen the movie. And they substitute the movie for the book, because we are a movie culture, not a book culture, and the movie is… well, it ranks #10 on the American Film Institute's list of the greatest American films. As for Gregory Peck, he won more than an Oscar. He won immortality; in 2003, the AFI named Atticus Finch the greatest movie hero of the 20th century. For Atticus to be revealed as a bigot is like learning that Santa hates kids or Jesus was a child molester.

to me it was one of those books that were assigned reading in the '60s.
Most of these choices, like Silas Marner and some obscure Dickens tripe I can't remember, seemed to be designed to beat any appreciation for reading out of the reader.

If anything, that would seem to make Atticus' defense in "Mockingbird" even more impressive, as he fought for justice on behalf of someone despite his personal prejudice.

But that requires people to grasp that individuals are often highly complex in our belief systems. That's too hard!

I read that the new book was written first. An editor suggested rewriting it set earlier from the point of view of the little girl. The result was Mockingbird.

Yes, that's the actual chronology. Also, as many have pointed out, the "heroic" Atticus in Mockingbird is a man as seen through the eyes of his own child, whereas the one in the new novel is viewed dispassionately by a third party.

I hope there isn't mention of a Confederate flag in the book. It will be added to the list of things to be in the bond fire.

As a side note "To kill a Mockingbird" is one of my favorite books. One of two that I've read three times.

I think most people who are upset forget that you can't put 2015 values into a 1960 piece of work. That the views of Finch were common to his generation. In "Mockingbird", his views were focused on justice and truth, but he expresses more commonly held social views of that time.

Kinda like trying to apply 21st century morale values to 19th century society. It doesn't work, but people still try.

Or 21st century ideals to 18th C figures also.

Read the patronizing tone of many abolitionist tracts.

An editor suggested rewriting it set earlier from the point of view of the little girl. The result was Mockingbird.

And almost certainly Truman Capote. Who sadly wasn't around to "edit" this one.

Demented old woman + greedy attorney = you do the math. It's sad any way you slice it, but it doesn't mean anything.

And aren't all prequels that sat simmering on the back burner for years and years complete garbage in the end, anyway?

This is the hazard of writing things achronologically. GM Fraser, God bless him, let Flashy get a little older and less despicable with every new book, regardless of when they took place. Thus Flashman's Lady and Flashman and the Mountain of Light feature a rather middle-aged Flashy, despite them being his second and third adventures.

But I think the Beast is right, and we can add in a well-meaning world of fans who couldn't accept that their favorite author only wrote one book. If you love and respect a creative artist, think twice before rifling through their cabinets. What you find may not be what you want, which is probably why it was still in the cabinet.

I only read the book, on my own and unrelated to a school project. I never saw the movie. I own a copy, but have never watched it. My impression of Mr. Finch was a man who was committed to proper justice and the safety of the community as a whole, regardless of his personal biases. Those biases were rouched upn, but not showcased, in the novel. He seemed to be aware that his biases were not the way to the future, and tried to not instill them in Scout.

My copy of the book, as well as the notebook I wrote down things while I read it, are both in storage right now so I cannot give you all the good stuff that I came up with.

Oh, the fauxrage…

I'm wondering how many people are confusing "To Kill a Mockingbird" with Hunger Games "Mockingjay". Chances are that someone will do 'on the street' surveys and find that most people have them mixed up… LOL

Personally, I want a NEW book by Miss Lee so if the "sequel" is only a re-hash of the brilliant TKAM, I would be disappointed. So I'm glad the Atticus character differs.

I was lucky enough to teach 8th grade literature using "To Kill a Mockingbird" to my eighth graders for well over twenty years. I can't remember how many times I've read it, now. Fifty? Sixty? Its the book that students remember.

I can say with honest self-assurance that its my favorite book. Though Atticus is my role-model, I will never, ever measure up.

How many of us have been guilty of thinking we are good, open-minded people for having cordial individual relationships, but are just as easy to blame "them" as a group with the worst possible sins ?

I can understand how somebody like Atticus Finch would go all-out to defend a black individual and feel he is making a small contribution to changing the minds of people in Maycomb (as he does after the trial, discussing it with his kids and Miss Maude) And yet hold the belief that as a collective, black people are a menace to society. It seems to be one of our most common negative human traits.

Of course we can ask ourselves what the actual intent of Harper Lee was. With all the pressure to get "new work" from a popular writer and the lucrative potential … All we know is that Harper Lee declined to write much else after Mockingbird. Did the success of that book change her mind on the subject she wanted to talk about originally ?

But a book is always a dual thing, torn between the interpretation of the reader and the intent of the writer. As a major Mockingbird fan I'll just pick it up and decide for myself what the hoopla is all about.

This is why I don't read fiction- it's worthless. The author is the puppet master and can put into the mouth of his characters whatever he wishes and the world in the novel believes it because he's the puppet master of the world the character in the novel is in. He can go back and forth and have the person do and say things that in the real world they never would, could, or want to and the world would not act they way they do in the novel. As such it's a wonderful fairy tale, but .

This is why I read non-fiction and history it's as true a record as we can get.

Fiction is OK so long as you realize it's drivel. Once you start to believe it, you're in trouble. Oh it can make an interesting story and be quite entertaining, but in actually understanding how the world is,-- worthless.

"This is why I don't read fiction- it's worthless."

Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong? But get on with the hyperbole if you enjoy it…

As for the "new" Harper Lee novel: come on-- this is a shameless money grab by the publishers who are printing a rough draft of the actual novel. They don't give a rats ass about the author's legacy nor the effect it has on the original book. Short term gain for long term destruction. If you read some background on how this novel came to be it's also highly debatable that Harper Lee ever wanted it published let alone "word for word."

Really Nazrat? So tell me you have Atticus Finch's graduation picture? Attend his wedding? Borrow his lawn mower? He's a fictional character that's no more real that Frodo Baggins, Oliver Twist, or Daffy Duck. So go ahead and believe any drivel you wish that comes out of his mouth. All you are doing is believing what the author says. Sorry, I'll take my real life lessons from real life.

Saw the movie, read the book, So what. As entertainment it's great. As a moral tale it's fine, we should all not beat the kids or spit on the sidewalk. But we knew all that before the movie and the book.

Hey Axabax,

You clearly do not know me or who I am, or what my work has been in gaming. But I guess you have a breast to beat, so go ahead.

In regard to fiction, it often contains a greater truth than history. Good literature gives light to our common hopes and fears, and unites us in a shared experience. Empathy.

History, even at its best, is an imperfect tool. History is, indeed, prone to manipulation in ways that fiction is not, and for far more heinous reasons.

This is why I don't read fiction- it's worthless.

The four most ignorant sentiments I've ever known expressed: "You can't judge someone by their morals", "Eating meat and eating are the same thing", Elle McPherson's "I never read anything I haven't written myself", and this.

Dear Wilfgar

Hardly. At some points it must square with real life which fiction need never do. Literature obviously gives light to our hopes and fears, but that's not reality. What happens when hopes and fears are actuated is.

I don't agree with you OSchmidt but you are in good company, Thomas Jefferson was an avid reader and collector of books and he called novel "A mass of trash", or something to that effect. I would say he was wrong too of course…

Hmmmm. Let me give you some examples, OSchmidt.

I've been following a lot of discussion regarding the stars and Bars, its 19th century meaning vs. its 21st century meaning, and how and when it should be displayed, if ever. History is open to interpretation. You're an intelligent man, and I'm sure you understand the "truth" being offered by both sides. What is truth in an historical context?

My science colleague at work complains that a couple of years after receiving new science texts, they are always out of date. Truth changes.

In 1989, a glorious summer, I took classes, both historical and regarding literature, on the French Revolution. In the history class, I wrote a paper about price controls which my prof kindly kept as a reference. There were new things which he had not considered in the past. His perception of truth was very slightly altered.

During that same summer, a class was offered on the literature of the French Revolution. The last book read in that course was Stendahl's "The Red and Black."

The first part of the novel gives an excellent and thrilling description of the Battle of Waterloo. At one point, Marshall Ney is standing by a disabled artillery piece, shouting in frustration as the French army retreats around him, pounding on the gun's carriage with his sword. Its an epic scene, invoking the best of Greek mythology, an epic figure venting the epic failure of the epic Napoleon. Ney seems like a giant of history, calling though the ages.

Its a fictitious scene, of course, but it produces far more truth than knowing the number of rounds fired at La Haye Saint, or the button color of the 40th Ligne.

At the end of the day, my seventh and eighth graders will remember the truth of a secret friend and guardian angel, leaving small gifts in the hollowed knot of a tree in Maycomb, than they will about the stratagems of the Gettysburg campaign, I assure you.

Its the humanity, the shared experience, which is their "truth." The details of Waterloo are the drivel which they quickly forget. They'll remember why Arthur was a good king, and quickly forget the Battle of Tours.

So what is truth?

Lighten up guys.
It's Otto being Otto.

Dear Dynaman8789

You don't have to agree with me. Novels are great entertainment, and as a means to either verify the verities (that is either support or question moral truths and general ideas, and also to hold up society to the lens of comparison with other societies or a mirror to its own. Likewise as a mirror or microscope to ones person actions and decisions, and many times they are a ripping good yarn. But as far as PROVING anything, or acting as a guide for action they are indeed, a "mass of trash" as anyone who tries to live ones life as a novel will find out.

What I mean as "being worthless" is as a guide, experiment, or "proof" that a certain course of action is realistic or probable with regard to success. That is as a guide for cause and effect. Nor, again, is it at all certain or even likely that the decisions made in a novel will be predictable or even replicable in real life.

Novels all too often allow the reader to see themselves in the protagonist, which is psychologically pleasing but very often NOT as they really are, or even could or would be. This engenders nothing but a false egoism and self righteousness--- that is, that because one has READ of these deeds one actually would DO these deeds. Predisposition and action are clean different things. Therefore saying we should do X because I read it succeeded in novel Y, is pretty much betting the farm on the advice of the oija board.

Novels are art, novels are intriguing, novels are fun and can enunciate, reinforce or question moral principles or human souls. But So does philosophy, the bible, and the canon of morals and mores of society which necessarily must predate the novel, otherwise it cannot re-affirm, examine or question them.

In war game terms it's like basing a set of rules on a Sharpe Novel, or Jules Verne. Won't mean a good game, and certainly won't be doable in real life.

The carpenter from Nazareth told us to "test every spirit" and then said "by their deeds shall ye know them." That is, don't listen to their words, watch what they do. The words are in the novel, the deeds are only in real life. Remember in this case that Atticus Finch did nothing. The author wrote the whole story, so if anything she should bet the praise. Finch's deeds existed nowhere in this world except on the page, and it wasn't he that put them there but the author.

The perfect proof of my point is the "newer-older"version. Is Atticus Finch a moral saint, or a reprehensible racist?

Depends on what the puppet master author says he is no? So before his name was synonymous with goodness and nobility… and now….

As I and said, from the standpoint of what is real- worthless and as Jefferson said, "A mass of trash." Blame me, excoriate me, hate me, I don't care. I will study real life and real people for my exemplars than fictional creations. Real people in addition to "the angels of their better nature" have warts and faults, and problems that form their own caution to an all too roseate view of life.

Remember, any novel must nest in the society that produces it, therefore one cannot know the novel without knowing the society.

Heck, I have to agree with the OFM yet AGAIN! What is the world coming too…

I'm fairly astonished that a man whose principal gaming pursuit is absurdist historical pastiches fueled by atrocious puns and sexual innuendo has such a dim view of fiction.

He's the smartest guy in the room.
He doesn't have to explain himself to the likes of you.

For some reason this feels like old news – must have seen something back in February.

'To kill a Mockingbird' was certain;y not the worst of the assigned reading in school. Certainly not my favorite book of all time.

Have to wonder how much of the furor is being generated to get publicity and generate sales.

Always a mistake to explain yourself.

I know a couple of people like Oschmidt here. And aside from being scientists generally preoccupied with their research, put a couple of drinks in them, and it can get like a Pauly Shore movie pretty quickly. In other words, the fact that they don't read fiction doesn't define them.

Really Nazrat? So tell me you have Atticus Finch's graduation picture? Attend his wedding? Borrow his lawn mower? He's a fictional character that's no more real that Frodo Baggins, Oliver Twist, or Daffy Duck. So go ahead and believe any drivel you wish that comes out of his mouth. All you are doing is believing what the author says. Sorry, I'll take my real life lessons from real life.

Oschmidt, cool it. This is very close to a personal attack.

You also support your argument with hyperbole. Why would you assume that just because someone enjoys fiction, they are believing "…any drivel you wish that comes out of his [the author's] mouth…"? In a later post you yourself describe some of the values of fiction.

This is why I don't read fiction- it's worthless.

If they are indeed "worthless," a defacto waste of money and time, would you then burn fiction books for the betterment of humankind? Or maybe they are not THAT worthless.

What about the Bible. Do you believe it to be fiction or non-fiction?

Imaginations….
No use for fiction …
Does not compute.

Holy books are fiction yet so many base their lives on it and rules they expect (or as more often is the case force) others to live by. where do you stand on those Otto?

I realise you are in the DH Otto but maybe its a good time to contemplate:

I'm guessing you don't like the metanarrative? You know – the idea that there is narrative about narratives? That history isn't the ‘truth' about an event in the past, but is rather a construct, legitimising the current (and possibly aspirational) power nexus?

So history and non-fiction, far from being a rock upon which to base your view of the world, is a less secure foundation than narrative fiction, which at least has the grace not to pretend to be true. That there are kernels of wisdom about the human condition in the warp and weft of make believe, establish these overtly fictional narratives as more, not less, reliable guides to reality than history. If we follow Lyotard we realise that all narrative is the rendering of events through an ideological prism of the author, be they historian, scientist or novelist.

The novelist at least lays his subterfuge out in plain sight. The historian masks his prejudice under the Enlightenment cloak of objectivity and factual classification, a smoke screen of the emancipation narrative, pretending an inter-connected explanation where none exists. Or if it does, it is lost in the layers of territorialisation. After all Bacon may have thought ‘Knowledge is power' but as Foucault showed ‘Power produces knowledge'.

Maybe you don't really know what you know?

Time to consciously read some fiction.

@ Gwydion

:an erudite response that I enjoyed reading & whole-heartedly agree with.

However, I think it is probably wasted on Otto as I think he posts for effect & does not necessarily mean what he says.

Or as the OFM succinctly put it:

It's Otto being Otto.

@ ochoin

Thanks

Probably.

What's this world coming to when a discussion of To Kill a Movkingbitd leads to 2 DHings.
Anyone want to try for a third?

At least we now know who the smartest man in the DH is.

Yeah Axabrax.

Wow! Who could have guessed that this topic would result in mass DH ing.

TWO is a "mass"? Or are you saying something about the size of the inmates? 8)=

to Nazrat.

Out if interest what has been Otto's work in gaming?

Over here in UK, where TKAMB has been frequently used in school literature classes – more, I suspect, for its value in exposing the evils of racism and relevance to an increasingly multiracial society, than for its literary merits (so, Otto, fiction can have value in making people question beliefs &c.) – the publication of the new book has generated a lot of interest and some discussion.

It is, I think, important to remember that it was not originally witten as a sequel to TKAMB – though the setting effectively makes it so – but was written first, and then Harper Lee rewrote Scout's reminiscences to create her perspective on events as a child in TKAMB.

Thus, the apparent contradiction in the character of Atticus Finch as an elderly man could simply reflect the fact that the author had revised the character to suit the purposes of her new novel, and did not similarly alter his portrayal in the 'sequel'.

Have to wonder how much of the furor is being generated to get publicity and generate sales.

Gorgorad, we do not agree on much, but we most definitely agree on this. :)

If we follow Lyotard we realise that all narrative is the rendering of events through an ideological prism of the author, be they historian, scientist or novelist.

On history we might, but on science we don't, because rather than fiction it is postmodernism's ignorant judgement of the scientific method that is utterly worthless.