leynes's Reviews > To Kill a Mockingbird

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review

did not like it

/// gentle reminder that this is not the time to read this book ///

This is my first re-read of 2017, and I don't regret it one bit. When I first read this book three years ago, I really liked it. Sadly, I didn't write my thoughts down in an elaborate way back in the day, but I know for sure, that I didn't read critically then. Upon my re-read of this book, I honestly don't have good things to say. I am aware that some of my criticism is not a critique of the book itself, but about its perception, and how it is, up to this day, held up as the one true book about race relations in the United States of America.

And that really infiruates me. This book was written by a white woman, from a white perspective, about white characters, for a white audience. This book is a pat on the back for the white middle class. This book gives comfort to the white middle class. Comfort that they, especially back in the 1960s, didn't need, and allow me to be so bold, didn't deserve.

Harper Lee's focus is purely white. While the white characters in this book are the subjects, who take action into their own hands, who suffer and make sacrifices, the black characters in this book are objects. They have little to no agency. Things happen to them. They are harmless, defenseless, and just there – waiting for the white knight hero, Atticus Finch, to save them. This book is a disgrace in the face of the black liberation movements that existed back in the day, and the solidarity within black communities. Black people stood up for themselves and fought for their rights, and only due to their voices, their protests, their sit-ins, their marches, their demonstrations, their conferences, was racial segregation made unconstitutional in the United States.

Black people, back then and now, know that Atticus Finch doesn't exist. And because no one put in better words than the one and only James Baldwin, I will quote a passage from one of his amazing interviews on the Dick Cavett Show in 1968. One could say that this is Baldwin's response to the cry of "not all white people":
James Baldwin: I don't know what most white people in this country feel. But I can only conclude what they feel from the state of their institutions. I don't know if white Christians hate Negroes or not, but I know we have a Christian church which is white and a Christian church which is black. That says a great deal for me about a Christian nation. [...] I don't know whether the labor unions and their bosses really hate me - that doesn't matter - but I know I'm not [allowed] in their union. I don't know whether the real estate lobby has anything against black people, but I know the real estate lobby is keeping me in the ghetto. I don't know if the board of education hates black people, but I know the textbooks they give my children to read and the schools we have to go to. Now, this is the evidence. You want me to make an act of faith, risking myself, my wife, my woman, my sister, my children on some idealism which you assure me exists in America, which I have never seen.
This right here is what I'm talking about. To Kill A Mockingbird plays into this idealism. Although the book touches on the horrors of racism in the Deep South, it’s a strangely comforting read. A terrible injustice is done, but at the end the status quo is reassuringly restored. The final message is that most (white) people are nice when you get to know them.

As a reader you are never allowed to feel with Tom Robinson, the black man who is innocently convicted for raping a white woman, because all the black characters in this tale are sidelined. This story should be about them, because how else would you be able to convince the white moderate (in the 1960s) that black people are actually people. The closest insight we get to a black character is the family's cook Calpurnia. Calpurnia is in the fictional tradition of the "happy black", the contented slave – the descendent of the ever-loyal Mammy in Gone With the Wind. And the rest of the black community is depicted as a group of simple, respectful folk – passive and helpless and all touchingly grateful to Atticus Finch – the white saviour. We never see any of them angry or upset. We never see the effect of Tom Robinson’s death on his family up close – we don't witness Helen, Tom's wife, grieving and Scout never wonders about his children. Their distress is kept at safe distance from the reader.

I was very angry after finishing this book, and I'm still angry up to this day. Not necessarily at Harper Lee, but at our society as a whole, and at our educational system. Why do we constantly uplift white narratives, whilst brushing over marginalized ones? Why aren't our kids reading If Beale Street Could Talk by James Baldwin – a book dealing with the exact same topic (a black man getting falsely accused of raping a woman)? Why isn't Lorraine Hansberry required reading? Why are we still relying on white narratives, when talking about black people and their struggles?

Since finishing this book, I started reading The History of Legal Education in the United States and I wanted to share some interesting facts, because I couldn't believe how absurd To Kill A Mockingbird was. This story is, supposedly, set in the Deep South in the 1930s, where Atticus Finch, our white saviour, takes it upon himself to defend a black man at court. By the end of Lee's novel we are led to believe that Atticus had a great chance of actually getting Tom Robinson acquitted, if the latter had just been a "good nigger" and didn't try to escape on his own. (Yes, I'm a little petty. I swear, I'm not turning bitter over this.) So, I just wanted to know how realistic that scenario is. All of the information is related to the 1930s Southern setting. Here's what I've learned:

Most Southern lawyers readily accepted black clients for routine economic cases – property, tort, contract, dept, insurance – and minor criminal cases that did not threaten the South's system of racial hierarchy. It was virtually impossible, however, to find a Southern white lawyer who would accept a major criminal case involving a white victim or a politically charged case that in any way challenged segregation.

Only the combination of direct action, community organizing and legal strategy with the help of black lawyers, made the defense of black men and women at court possible. In the Lockett-case, the black community in Tulsa survived largely because black lawyers were able to defend the community's interests. In 1934, black lawyers represented George Crawford, a black man accused of brutally murdering a wealthy white woman – no white lawyer would take Crawford's case. In the end, Crawford got a sentence of life imprisonment instead of a death sentence. And this verdict had to be seen as an accomplishment by the black lawyers and the black community as a whole, because life imprisonment was as good as it was going to get.

Oftentimes, black lawyers took serious criminal cases without a fee or at a very reduced rate. This was well appreciated by their communities, but also a given. It is admirable how well black communities were organized. None of that got translated on the pages of Lee's novel. The black characters do absolutely nothing, except sending Atticus food, because they're so grateful. [*insert snort here*]

This book appears to uphold the standard of racial equality; de facto it is about the white middle class patting themselves on the back for not thinking racist thoughts. I'm sorry to break it to you, Miss Maudie, but you won't get a sugar cookie for that. I am not saying that this is not a realistic portrayal of the white middle class, it is, it totally is. If you do just a little research on the Civil Rights movement, the moral apathy of the white middle class becomes crystal clear. However, we shouldn't portray these characters in a positive light, there is nothing admirable about them. After all...
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against is really cooperating with it.

- Martin Luther King, Jr.
299 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read To Kill a Mockingbird.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

May 23, 2017 – Started Reading
May 24, 2017 – Finished Reading
June 3, 2017 – Shelved

Comments Showing 1-30 of 30 (30 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Susa You make some very good points here. Some that I have not thought about when I originally read the book a couple of years back. Might be worth a re-read with these thoughts in mind.

leynes @Susa: I'm glad you appreciate my points. I always think it's important to discuss literature from different perspectives. :)

message 3: by AndrewT_C2 (new)

AndrewT_C2 But Kyungnang, maybe this book was written in the basis of the differences and aspects of diffrent ethnicities throughout the world, so yes this book may have been written by a white woman, and white perspectives, and white characters but maybe it was because of all of that, that makes this book a truly fascinating story. Also you are right that those people didn't deserve what they had but they did and you can't change that because that was the past. This book isn't just a book at heart it is a lesson a lesson about all the wrong doings that the human race has done for Millennium. But again you never know because the past is the past and all you have is the future

message 4: by AndrewT_C2 (new)

AndrewT_C2 Wait never mind just realized that you liked this but anyways my message still stands that maybe that was the theme of the story

message 5: by Saoirse (new) - added it

Saoirse I did not like the book either when I read it in 2005. Could not pinpoint why I didn't. Now I do.

Ajeet I never thought to attach 'thw white messiah' to Atticus, maybe coz he was on way up too high pedestal and I never judged books with that label till now, only movies. Your points definitely made me rethink and i wont disagree now that the book does seem like a pat on back of white middle class to assuage their guilt. Black characters in book are two dimensional. And it is yet again a travesty that a book written for white ppl about white ppl by a white writer becomes a benchmark to judge the racial realities of Deep South circa 30s. I have read some Toni Morrison and they usually turn into a kick in gut. While TKM remains an embalming sugarcoating in a disguise of hope. I wud re-read it definitely. I dont reread books much as they are so many. But this book when i first read it, became my instant #1and when I would [finally re-read it] I would put on my unflinching critical glasses this time.

Anna I appreciate this review and perspective. Thank you as it was the catalyst for my reading If Beale St Could Talk, which was well worth reading. I’d always loved To Kill A Mockingbird but my 2018 mind is not as naive as my 1985 one. My appreciation of this review reflects this.

leynes Anna wrote: "I appreciate this review and perspective. Thank you as it was the catalyst for my reading If Beale St Could Talk, which was well worth reading. I’d always loved To Kill A Mockingbird but my 2018 mi..."

So happy to hear that. :)

message 9: by Daniela (last edited Mar 11, 2019 05:22PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Daniela I enjoyed this review, but I think it suffers from a problem that concerns much of the criticism of To Kill a Mockingbird. So often the criticism is not about the book itself but about the idea of the book.

Thinking, for instance, that To Kill a Mockingbird is on the same footing as southern black literature – which obviously isn’t. If someone turns Atticus into a messiah or a saviour, I think that's on the reader, and not on the book itself. The book makes clear that he fails as a saviour – he can’t even acquit Tom Robinson. TKM was written by a white woman about the story of her family. Atticus is somewhat based on Lee’s own father, who did defend two black men accused of murder. It's not meant to be a portrayal of the lives of black people in the South because she's not one, that's not her experience.

Atticus’s actions are only impactful if you consider the prejudices of white people. That’s why what he does is so odd and strange. Even the reactions of the black population only make sense if you consider that they were so unused to a white person not being automatically racist. The problem is that people try to make Atticus what he’s not, some kind of white Martin Luther King – which of course, he isn’t. He’s not meant to be, and he’s not written as such. Atticus is not a revolutionary, he’s barely a reformist. Atticus is what he is, a lawyer trying to do what he thinks is right while still attempting to make a life for himself in his community – which was southern and white. And he is brave because of it, because he is turning against his own community. But if we make him into more than that, then I think that’s on the reader’s expectations and not on what the character delivers.

I understand people saying that the book is flawed because it doesn’t give black people a voice. But really, I think the book would have been so much worse if she had tried to do that. Because…how would she know? What does a white woman born in Alabama in a privileged family in the 50s know about the lives of black people? And Harper Lee is aware of this. That’s why when the children go with Calpurnia to her church Scout is so amazed that Calpurnia has a life outside their house. They never conceived it. That’s Harper Lee understanding her own limitations and stating them point blank.

Lastly, this was a book published in 1960 by a southern white woman and I think its impact can only be measured if you consider its reception within the white community. Because black people knew all this. Black people knew that the system of justice was rigged against them. They knew white people were racist. They knew a few good white folks didn’t compensate for all the horrors they were subjected to. They knew that one good white man couldn’t necessarily change anything. And Harper Lee shows this: Tom Robinson dies, and he dies a guilty man.

But Atticus is important for white people’s conscience. And he’s written as such. If one thinks the book is more than, I think that’s more on the reader and how people’s expectations aren’t matched by it

Joshuathebibliophile I'm just about to read the book for the first time. I will take into account of your opinion 🙂

Alexis I completely agree! There was no emotional impact on this book. I've read some books fiction and non fiction on slavery and there was a lot of lack on here. I wondered after I was done reading it why this book is soooo popular. Its bland boring and just a sugar coated tasteless cookie.

leynes Alexis wrote: "I completely agree! There was no emotional impact on this book. I've read some books fiction and non fiction on slavery and there was a lot of lack on here. I wondered after I was done reading it w..."

Bland. Boring. Sugar-coated. Tasteless. Yup. Perfect way to describe this book! Unfortunately, white people tend to turn to white saviour narratives when it comes to the topics of racism, so that they can feel better about themselves.

message 13: by robinie (new)

robinie Ich habe mich immer schlecht gefühlt, dass ich dieses Buch noch nicht gelesen habe, und jetzt kommst du mit diesem Review daher und rettest mich vor meinen Schuldgefühlen! :D Grandiose Rezension! Ich bewundere dich für deinen Scharfsinn und deinen kritischen Verstand. Deine Rezensionen sind einfach brillant!

message 14: by Cedricsmom (new)

Cedricsmom Phew! Girrrllllllll.............

leynes Cedricsmom wrote: "Phew! Girrrllllllll............."

I said what I said.
robinie wrote: "Ich habe mich immer schlecht gefühlt, dass ich dieses Buch noch nicht gelesen habe, und jetzt kommst du mit diesem Review daher und rettest mich vor meinen Schuldgefühlen! :D Grandiose Rezension! I..."

Freut mich, dass dir meine Rezension so helfen konnte. Das Buch kann man sich wirklich getrost sparen.

message 16: by Fred (new) - added it

Fred Cette première ligne est intéressante, quoi. Moi, je lirai le livre en considération de ça!

leynes Fred wrote: "Cette première ligne est intéressante, quoi. Moi, je lirai le livre en considération de ça!"

Je t'en prie, fais-le! :)

Juli(◕ᴗ◕✿) Just a heads up if you didn't like the racism and white saviourness in this book, definitely don't read the sequel. It's AWFUL.

Ariana I liked this book mostly because it showcased how, in the 1930's, black people couldnt win. Thats what I took from the story not the "all white people are good aspect" in fact I learned that there are some pretty bad ones out there especially when the mob shows up and in the case of the Ewells. I never thought of Atticus as a white savior because he never did much saving. He tried to save a person from punishment even though he couldve thrown the case. I think it was important to take this point of view because it showcases that standing up for a black person in the 1930s, even if it was just doing there job, could've meant giving your life. I also like this perspective because the author is white and has never gone through what a black person feels. I wouldve much rather it been a white person telling a white perspective rather than a white person telling a black perspective. I also think what they did with Tom Robinson was good because as you said he seemed more like an object. This is what black people were seen as in the 1930's or they were seen as "the help". We get to see how good of a person Tom is and that he is a human because of his family. Scout is a young child who had yet to understand the full lengths of sympathy and other such emotions. Yet again I feel it necessary to say that she was a kid and never got the chance to really think in depth about black peoples lives. As for Calpurnia, she is "the help", its her job to care for the kids. Would you have lasted very long in a job where you cried, had an attitude, or told your life story, especially with the racism of the 1930's? No you wouldnt have. These are just my thoughts and opinions though. You contridicted yourself when you got mad that white authors are narrating black stories but also got mad when the author didnt write enough about the black narrative. In your research you said that it was virtually impossible to find a white southern lawyer who was willing to defend a black man. Thats what makes TKM so special, we get to see what effect Atticus has on the white community when he takes this case.

Sheelalipi Sahana I have loved this book for decades but recently there were some reservations cropping up in my mind - particularly it’s white saviour complex. You have so beautifully articulated this review and given voice to what I was bothered by and more! Thank you. We need to read more black authors.

message 21: by EniEvi (new)

EniEvi Go Whites!

Cassie Hi, would you mark this review as containing spoilers please?

message 23: by MB (new) - added it

MB Ty for review, you sound so educated.

message 24: by Eilidh (new)

Eilidh I just read Go Set A Watchman and now TKAM. I'm absolutely amazed that readers universally love these books. Detractors state that if you don't love the books you totally missed the point & must be an idiot. TKAM is absolute drivel- long winded, over descriptive drivel. If you read GSAW you realize Atticus is just as racist as the next white guy in Alabama, he just feels that everyone is entitled to a defense. I read this book because it was on my bucket list, but it was painful, and a disappointment. The black characters are marginalized and the great white savior (well, he didn't actually save anyone) is a subject that shouldn't garner admiration especially in today's climate. This book left me with a sour taste in my mouth but also a deep disappointment with so many readers who admire both the book & the great savior Atticus Finch.

message 25: by Cora (new) - rated it 1 star

Cora After reading page after page of the glowing beauty of this novel, I felt very frustrated. Thank you for more eloquently expressing how I felt after reading this. I feel it's also a pathetic excuse for white people to talk about racism. It's easy and passive. On a side note, I appreciated the Simon De Behaviour.

Cristine I completely disagree and that’s ok.

Charlotte Hawkins I'm so glad you've made these points! I'm required to teach this book at the moment in my Year 11 English class. Several students who are POC have mentioned how they're sick of white saviour texts, and I find your review very insightful.

Wallaby Ug. The Harper Lee never claims that she set out to write the book you wanted her to write. You've read a book about white children and projected the goals you wanted the author to have onto her work. Instead of lifting up the voices you want heard, you are slamming this one. You expected the author to write things she had little to no actual knowledge about. Can you image the train wreck this book would have been if a young white woman from the south had attempted to write the book you wanted her to write?

The prose that this story is written in is spectacular. It is one of the finest works of English literature. And it's stellar value has nothing to do with the race of it's author or it's treatment of racial injustice.

Of course Atticus Finch is larger than life, the story is told from the standpoint of Finch's children. Since Atticus preserved a good relationship with his children, there should be no surprise that his children see him as larger than life. Indeed he seems like a "white savior" not because he's white, but because the story is told from the standpoint of his children.

A fictional story rarely matches reality. But, this story does a good job of bringing to life the experiences of the young white children of a progressive lawyer during a difficult time in the American south.

Susan Jones It is also written through the eyes of children

message 30: by Carl (new) - rated it 5 stars

Carl Morgan You can get your ex back and cure your infertility problems with Dr. Odunga. 
  When I met Dr.Odunga, my husband had divorced me because I was a barren woman of 41 and I have been married for 21 years. I was devastated and confused as a woman of my age until when I went online to look for help on how to get my marriage back then I met Dr. Odunga. Within 48 hours of contacting him, my ex husband came back home and pleaded for me to forgive him and take him back after 5 months of divorce. I accepted him back and then I told Dr. Odunga of my bareness for him to help me. He did the spell for fertility and after 48 hours of completing it, I conceived. My husband got me pregnant and I gave birth to a baby girl.       Presently, I am a mother of a beautiful baby girl and I am happy in my relationship. This is all thanks to Dr. Odunga and his wonderful work. Contact Dr. Odunga Via Whats-App number +2348167159012. Email at: odungaspelltemple@gmail.com

Post a reply

I want to use this opportunity to thank Dr omobhude for what he has done for me and for helping me to get my ex back with his love spell at first I thought it's not going to work until I have faith in it and it tells me that it's guarantee and truly I have seen it thanks aging papa I we advice you people who need love spell to contact Dr omobhude email him dr.omobhude1@gmail.com or Whats App +2349050360605https://www.facebook.com/Dr-Omobhude-....

back to top