To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee (Group Classics Read June/July '15)

[Terry ~ Huntress of Erudition]

I think that the author was just showing what happened, morally correct or not, is what goes on behind the scenes in many small towns, even now.

[Deborah]

I see a lot of very good arguments here over Atticus' decision. I think that very issue is a lot of what made the book what it is - if Atticus had made the 'right' decision - would we be having this discussion at all? It's philosophy in action:

philosophy: (noun)

1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

2.A theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.

Both of these definitions are happening right here: what a struggle it is to determine the nature of right and wrong - though most of us might say that we know full well what right and wrong ARE - no?

But - I assert there is no such thing in any absolute sense.

Obeying the law is the right thing to do - but what if the law includes apartheid? or was made by Nazis? What if you KNOW (or at least have a very strong suspicion) that the legal process left to itself will destroy a vulnerable person? You, a lawyer, know this. And what if you are living in a time when current (today's) mores are not accessible?

Law itself is meant to be interpreted, not applied in a fixed black and white way - that's why we have judges - they are the interpreters.

So, it was wrong that the issue was not left to be interpreted by a judge - but judges are human and the case might have come before a prejudiced judge. Or a judge with a headache.

Legally wrong and ethically or morally wrong can be the same thing - but they are often diametrically opposed. For myself, I would follow what appeared to be morally correct if faced with that dichotomy. Is that wrong? They told me to shoot Jews and I said no.....

Like any moral dilemma, it can only be resolved ABOUT that case, AT the time it has to be dealt with. The answer can only be - if I take this action, can I look myself in the eye and be confident I did the best thing for the rest of my life? Or, should I do the socially sanctioned 'right thing' and live with my guilt/shame/etc?

Which would you choose?

[Greg]

Teri-k wrote: "That's really what I meant when I said sometimes I don't like life, either. Is this a case where a man goes against what I expect and I'm left to just not like it? After all, people do contradictory things sometimes...."

That's very true Teri-K! People in real life do sometimes do very contradictory things - a normally thoughtful person doing something careless, etc.

The one action toward the end does seem inconsistent and unlikely for Atticus, but it certainly doesn't spoil the book for me either!

[Greg]

Deborah wrote: "Legally wrong and ethically or morally wrong can be the same thing - but they are often diametrically opposed. ... Like any moral dilemma, it can only be resolved ABOUT that case, AT the time it has to be dealt with. The answer can only be - if I take this action, can I look myself in the eye and be confident I did the best thing for the rest of my life?"

For sure this is true Deborah!

[Shirley]

Greg wrote: "Teri-k wrote: "That's really what I meant when I said sometimes I don't like life, either. Is this a case where a man goes against what I expect and I'm left to just not like it? After all, people ..."

Atticus's decision at the end didn't spoil the book for me at all. In fact, for me it made Atticus seem more real, rather than a saint. He is human, after all, and was worried about his children, having just been through a particularly emotionally draining time at the trial. I'm not at all surprised he acted the way he did and I cannot judge him for it, because I cannot say I wouldn't have done the same thing myself.

[Alice]

Shirley wrote: "Greg wrote: "Teri-k wrote: "That's really what I meant when I said sometimes I don't like life, either. Is this a case where a man goes against what I expect and I'm left to just not like it? After..."

"He is human, after all..." I cannot argue with that Shirley. Maybe what Ms. Lee was trying to point out is that as humans, we all harbor prejudices in some ways.

[Teri-K]

Alice wrote:"He is human, after all..." I cannot argue with that Shirley. Maybe what Ms. Lee was trying to point out is that as humans, we all harbor prejudices in some ways."

Very good point, Alice.

ETA- This may be going too far, but perhaps realizing Atticus isn't perfect is a kind of "coming-of-age" for the reader, that parallels Scout's own realization that her world, and the people in it, aren't perfect?

(One thing that interests me is that no one in my book club brought up the ending at all. I thought it only bothered me.)

[Shirley]

Alice wrote: "Shirley wrote: "Greg wrote: "Teri-k wrote: "That's really what I meant when I said sometimes I don't like life, either. Is this a case where a man goes against what I expect and I'm left to just no..."

Yes, we do, and often we don't realise it, too.

[Shirley]

Teri-k wrote: "Alice wrote:"He is human, after all..." I cannot argue with that Shirley. Maybe what Ms. Lee was trying to point out is that as humans, we all harbor prejudices in some ways."

Very good point, Ali..."

I like that Teri-k, I think that's true. I think it is about exactly that. Realising that your parents, and authority figures aren't perfect, and make mistakes is a definite step in the process of growing up.

[Greg]

Alice wrote: "Maybe what Ms. Lee was trying to point out is that as humans, we all harbor prejudices in some ways. ..."

Certainly true as Shirley says that we all harbor prejudices to some degree, but I think Harper Lee is getting at more than that.

The title of the whole book is "to kill a mockingbird"; so that's got to be important ... and the mockingbird metaphor only comes up twice: the first time is when they talk about how mockingbirds should never be shot because they do no harm, only grace the world with their song. The second time is the very part toward the end that we've been talking so much about, where Scout and Atticus talk after Atticus' decision about how (view spoiler)[Boo (hide spoiler)] is like a mockingbird.

The book sure seems to be saying that (view spoiler)[Boo does no harm and is only kind; so it would be a greater sin for him to be harmed than for the law to be obeyed. The idea I got was that being the reclusive outcast Boo is, even if he was lucky enough to be acquitted, the public nature of the trial would destroy him. (hide spoiler)]

I'm not sure if I agree with what's done or not, but in that time, in that place, and in that position, I believe I would've quite likely done what Atticus did.

The problem for me is not the morality of it (though the morality is muddy waters to be sure!) so much as the breaking of character; it seems very unlike Atticus to make the decision he does. But I feel partly mollified by Teri-K's statement that people sometimes do act inconsistently. That's quite true!

Teri-K wrote "ETA- This may be going too far, but perhaps realizing Atticus isn't perfect is a kind of "coming-of-age" for the reader, that parallels Scout's own realization that her world, and the people in it, aren't perfect?"

I like that idea Teri-K!


Teri-K wrote: "One thing that interests me is that no one in my book club brought up the ending at all."

Thanks Alice for orginally calling attention to issues surrounding the ending! I probably wouldn't have thought about it as deeply if you hadn't raised your questions. Although it at first seems straightforward, as Deborah said the ending raises some complex ethical and moral questions. I've enjoyed talking about it with the group! Great discussion already and we're technically only halfway through the read period!

[Shirley]

Greg, in response to your second spoiler where you say (view spoiler)[ "it would be a greater sin for him to be harmed than for the law to be obeyed", I don't think Harper Lee is saying that (just my opinion, of course) - I think she is saying that the law was obeyed in the Tom Robinson trial - and yet the law let him down. In the light of that trial, I think she is advocating that we have a choice (not that the law shouldn't be obeyed) and that when we weigh it all up, what should we decide to do? In this case, Heck decided against bringing another trial (which was wrong from a legal point of view) but he believed it was right that an man like Boo should not be dragged through a trial (I personally don't think he would have stood a chance in court).

I also think the sheriff was "covering up" to avoid more pain and grief to Atticus - his children would have to go to court and I think Heck thought Atticus had been through enough. The Tom Robinson case took everything he had and still the jury failed to find Tom innocent, despite overwhelming evidence. (hide spoiler)]

[Greg]

I agree with everything you say Shirley, both (view spoiler)[in your assessment of Boo's chances and in your interpretation of Heck's motivations. I think everything you say is absolutely true.

I still think though that in the end, Lee is suggesting that all of those human feelings and concerns are sometimes more important than the law itself, that obeying the law is sometimes less important than doing right by human beings. That's what I meant by my second spoiler. And I have some sympathy for that point of view, especially when the mechanism of the law is unjust, as it was in the Robinson trial. (hide spoiler)]

[Teri-K]

It occurs to me, too, about the ending, that it's easy for someone like me to believe that one should always follow the law and allow it to take its course. (Except in extreme cases like Nazi Germany or allowing slavery, IMO.) I and those I care about have never received great injustice under the law. When you've seen a true travesty of justice like they had it would be much harder to "take the high road", especially if you care about the victims.

[Greg]

Teri-k wrote: "It occurs to me, too, about the ending, that it's easy for someone like me to believe that one should always follow the law and allow it to take its course. (Except in extreme cases like Nazi Germa..."

True Teri-K!

[Shirley]

Greg wrote: "I agree with everything you say Shirley, both in your assessment of Boo's chances and in your interpretation of Heck's motivations. I think everything you say is absolutely true.

I still think tho..."

Yes, I agree with you, she is suggesting that. I think I may have misunderstood you first time round -sorry!!

[Shirley]

Teri-k wrote: "It occurs to me, too, about the ending, that it's easy for someone like me to believe that one should always follow the law and allow it to take its course. (Except in extreme cases like Nazi Germa..."

Yes I agree. I guess many big decisions we make in life are shaped by our experiences, especially if we have seen injustice. It would really make you want to be sure it doesn't happen again.

[Greg]

Shirley wrote: "I guess many big decisions we make in life are shaped by our experiences, especially if we have seen injustice. It would really make you want to be sure it doesn't happen again. ..."

I was reading our other group read, A Man Called Ove, over lunch and what you say above really applies to that one too! Seeing injustice firsthand leaves a lifelong impression, I think.

Both of my partner Ron's parents were interned in the Japanese internment camps as young children. One of their grandparents even died in camp due to lack of medical care. Oddly though, they don't seem to hold any bitterness, but the whole family still remembers, rightfully so. I went with them to visit a plaque and memorial at the site in the middle of the desert where they were interned (the Poston camp), a touching moment. Nothing but desert for miles and miles surrounding it.

[Shirley]

Greg wrote: "Shirley wrote: "I guess many big decisions we make in life are shaped by our experiences, especially if we have seen injustice. It would really make you want to be sure it doesn't happen again. ......"

Wow, that must have been a very moving experience, Greg.

[Deborah]

Experience forming our response to events/decisions - exactly what I meant re Atticus - as a lawyer he knew better than most the way the legal system would deal with events.

As to "except in extreme cases like Nazi Germany" I only used 'extreme' cases to make the dichotomy clear: how do we decide if it's an extreme case? If it is permissible to make an exception in an extreme case then any event, being subjected to any person's judgement of what exceptional is,may be excepted by that person because they are the one making the decision. Not you and not me. Either all is black and white and clear and no exceptions can be made - or we accept that there will always be a judgement call that someone will have to make.

Whether or not we agree with the decision they make.

My intent was to demonstrate that it is not possible to negate all exceptions.

[Free]

Teri-k wrote: "It occurs to me, too, about the ending, that it's easy for someone like me to believe that one should always follow the law and allow it to take its course. (Except in extreme cases like Nazi Germa..."

I love this. Thank you for pointing this out. A lot of times people fail to see things from others point of view and consider they struggles that have happened in that person life.

[Teri-K]

Reina wrote: "I love this. Thank you for pointing this out. A lot of times people fail to see things from others point of view and consider they struggles that have happened in that person life. "

Getting a different point of view is one of the best reasons to read books, I think. But sometimes I have to think about a book for a while. :)

[Noorilhuda]

Hi, just jumping in for a sec - I think the whole legacy of TKAMB is being tarnished by 'go set a watchman' - it's a novel that should never have been published - and clearly wasn't till apparently an agent and publishing house thought it necessary - it has Atticus Finch talking about 'negroes' as if they are unequal!

http://www.people.com/article/harper-...

Clearly it was a book Lee wrote before writing TKAMB - and it is obvious she changed the characters and the story and published TKAMB and only TKAMB! go set a watchman is the evil twin of that great book that should have stayed in the drawer.

It actually reminds me of the crude sequel to Gone with the Wind that was published years ago - this is as bad as that.

[Greg]

Noorilhuda wrote: "it has Atticus Finch talking about 'negroes' as if they are unequal!

http://www.people.com/article/harper-...

Clearly it was a book Lee wrote before writing TKAMB..."


That's disturbing Noorilhuda!

[Robin P]

This mornings NY Times also has an article (with spoilers) which convinced me I don't want to read the new (older) book. If it was going to be released, maybe the names and town of the characters should have been changed so that it was about someone else. And even then, it sounds like the book itself just isn't that good, and certainly not uplifting. Maybe Lee herself was bitter about the South and showed that in Watchman but as she worked on Mockingbird, her tone and attitude changed.

[Noorilhuda]

@Greg, Robin, it's a bestseller before release - but it is going to tarnish Lee's legacy - or at least highlight abuse / exploitation of the elderly! Won't be the first time.

On a side note, I wonder what Gregory Peck would've made of it!

[Noorilhuda]

Or is go set a watchman going to be complementary side-read with the compulsory TKMAB?!

[Robin P]

I think a good side read with this book is The Round House . The father actually reminded me of Atticus. The community is Native American and the conflicts are similar to TKAM - how to fight for justice while knowing the system is against you, and when to do something outside the system. It's also a coming of age story, though with a bit older protagonist.

[Greg]

I've always wanted to read Louise Erdrich Robin - thanks for the recommendation!

[Leslie]

Robin wrote: "I think a good side read with this book is The Round House . The father actually reminded me of Atticus. The community is Native American and the conflicts are similar to TKAM - how..."

Greg wrote: "I've always wanted to read Louise Erdrich Robin - thanks for the recommendation!"

This was a Group Read last year:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I hadn't read Erdrich before and thought it was an excellent book so I second Robin's recommendation.

[Greg]

Great Leslie! Thanks! I think that group read was before my time in the group.

[Bionic Jean]

What a great discussion! Very thought-provoking. Thanks all.

I read this last year for the first time - also with this group as a readalong.

Although I knew the story from several dramatisations I was still blown away by the book and gave it my rare 5* rating.

Here's my review

Something nobody's mentioned, I don't think, though is the difficulty non-Americans might have with all the details which are exclusive to the US. I didn't want to "skim over" anything, so found out anything which wasn't familiar (thanks to Katy in this group for a lot of help there!) And I compiled a personal glossary (which other non-American readers may find useful) in the first comment after my review.

The discussion thread is buried somewhere in the archive. I did find it to link to, but lost it again ... Maybe it's a bit late in the day now anyway.

[Teri-K]

Jean wrote: "What a great discussion! Very thought-provoking. Thanks all.

I read this last year for the first time - also with this group as a readalong.

Although I knew the story from several dramatisations..."

Jean - Not too late at all. And getting a non-American view is interesting. We Americans read British lit all the time, but rarely get the chance to hear from those reversing this. I'm going to check out your review and that glossary. It will be interesting to see what's on it.

[Noorilhuda]

Um, the lawyer has found another one!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

[Pink]

Noorilhuda wrote: "Um, the lawyer has found another one!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic..."

Ughh. Not surprised though given the media frenzy and money being made from GSAWatchman.

[Greg]

Noorilhuda wrote: "Um, the lawyer has found another one!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic..."

How discouraging - I do also feel a little dismayed at how pervasively and agressively Go Set a Watchman is being promoted. It's their job, of course. Sometimes I just wish the world worked a little differently.

[Noorilhuda]

@Pink and Greg, what I cannot understand is how this was allowed to happen to a national treasure (and I mean Lee, not TKAMB) - these are obviously drafts before she wrote THE book that we are reading this month. And critics are calling it an interesting depiction of race and how adult reality collides with a child's perceptions and how Atticus Finch is now more real than he was in TKAMB!

It is pretty obvious that in drafts Lee was thinking of these characters in a certain way before settling on to the version she published - and the ONLY one she published! I feel sorry for the poor old woman!

[Pink]

Noorilhuda wrote: "@Pink and Greg, what I cannot understand is how this was allowed to happen to a national treasure (and I mean Lee, not TKAMB) - these are obviously drafts before she wrote THE book that we are read..."

Yep!

[Bionic Jean]

Agree. Very sad :(

[Hales]

Is anyone planning on reading watchman? Despite the reviews I believe I won't be able to resist.

[Pink]

It's been on my 'never ever' shelf since I heard it was being released, so not for me. I'm sure you'll find lots of others excited to read it though.

[Terry ~ Huntress of Erudition]

I just downloaded the Audible version with Reese Witherspoon narrating.

[Greg]

Terry wrote: "I just downloaded the Audible version with Reese Witherspoon narrating."

Do you mean Go Set a Watchman Terry? If so, should I set up a readalong thread for you, Hales, and anyone else who might be interested?

[Terry ~ Huntress of Erudition]

Ok, thanks!

[Greg]

I set up a readalong thread: Terry, Hales and anyone else interested in joining them can comment on Go Set a Watchman here - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Noorilhuda]

Am surprised no one has discussed race yet - Toni Morrison said TKAMB had a 'white savior' perspective, some say that it is a typical story usually written by whites to showcase their world view and their place in the world, how to be politically correct when times are changing.

I personally think that TKAMB shows life as it occurs in any rural / small townish place, the prejudices are more stark, the results more severe than in city life - and when writing such a book as this, the view of the majority / authority figures is more important than the victim's because change always comes from the majority accepting 'what is right' and TKAMB indirectly shows the harm that small-mindedness can have - my guess is that is why it is accepted reading in U.S. schools - unless education is brought down to the level of the people and discusses what is wrong in their thinking, societies never change or accept change or 'what is right'.

[Pink]

Noorilhuda wrote: "Am surprised no one has discussed race yet - Toni Morrison said TKAMB had a 'white savior' perspective, some say that it is a typical story usually written by whites to showcase their world view an..."

You make some good points. When I read TKAMB at school as a teenager, I didn't even know the term 'white saviour' so would't have considered this. Now as an adult it's something I don't like in books that I read. It's why I won't ever pick up The Help no matter how good or well written it is, it's just not the sort of story I'm interested in hearing. I'd prefer to read something else that actually deals with these issues from the black character's point of view, without the need for 'white help' which these books rely on.

I think the discussions about race will be more prevalent now that Go Set A Watchman has been published, as this book looks at race in a different way. (view spoiler)[I've noticed that readers are disappointed or angry about how Atticus is portrayed as a racist character, rather than the hero and people don't like it. When actually this a more realistic portrayal of a white male character living in 1950s and 60s Southern states. It also throws open a lot of questions about how race relations have moved on, or not, in the past 50-60 years in America. GSAW's publication timing and the content are very relevant to current troubles that have been in the forefront of media, especially over the past year (which are too numerous to even start listing) and I think it's important to read about these issues and confront them, rather than brush them under the carpet and pretend that only evil people held and still hold these views. (hide spoiler)]

With TKAMB I think it's a product of it's time and I'm glad that I read it (and loved it). I'd still choose to read it today, but perhaps I'd go into it with different expectations and awareness. However, if it was written in 2015 I'd probably find it more problematic in it's white saviour theme.

I won't be reading GSAW, not because of the race issues, but because I disagree with it being published. (view spoiler)[Nor do I consider it to be part 2 of Mockingbird, when it's so clearly the first rejected draft (though it's debatable just how finished it was and whether in fact there was a ghost writer involved in the published edition). Has anyone seen the new controversy about numerous passages being exact copies in both books? It's probably why the writing seems so familiar. (hide spoiler)]

[Greg]

Noorilhuda and Pink, I have a great deal of respect for Toni Morrison and I understand where she's coming from, but I'm not sure I agree.

Of course, it's a wonderful thing to have books written from the perspective of suppressed minorities. Such books often shed light on previously undiscovered areas, and without them, the full story is utterly incomprehensible. There's much to be understood in such narratives about what it's like to survive in a hostile environment, about the struggle to maintain wholeness while under attack, about a great many things. I love to read such books!

But there's also much to be gained from the unique perspective in TKAM as well .. the perspective of the struggle to maintain integrity and wholeness as a member of the majority when what that majority believes is wrong. This is something almost everyone eventually faces because "majority" & "minority" have some fluidity to them. For instance, in TKAM, notice how things change when the kids go to Calpurnia's black church .. suddenly Scout and Jem are in the minority, at least there, and notice how different people behave in that new power configuration. Not quite the same thing as the larger culture since the weight and power of the law isn't behind this subculture, but the behavior and reactions are still quite interesting.

But I'm digressing a bit. Going back to the whole "white savior" idea. Well, if a book were written that way as a wish fulfillment, that would be distasteful. But I don’t feel that way about TKAM. TKAM is more sophisticated than that.

I do think analyzing books and media produced by a culture as a whole can be very interesting in describing that culture's beliefs, prejudices, and obsessions. So books like Sexual Politics can be fruitful and interesting as a general cultural study. I think it's perfectly valid for Morrison to point out a larger cultural preoccupation with "white saviors" and what that might mean within the culture.

I don't, however, think the connection necessarily goes the other way. I don’t think trying to squeeze individual works into one of these tropes and judge the worth of individual works based on how they fit or don't fit is useful. To me, that's where theory goes wrong. Tropes and theories are fantastic at analyzing large conglomerations of people, books, things, etc, but just awful at analyzing individual people, books, things, etc. When it comes to an individual book, I ask myself other questions: are these characters real? do their hearts beat under my fingers? why are they doing what they are? what can they whisper in my ear and teach me? If the characters have nothing to teach me, if the pulse is dead, if it's just a wish-fulfillment gone wrong, that's where I feel a little misused. With TKAM, the pulses are there, they do beat! So general theories can't be enough to disregard them.

That's my highly individual take on it :)

[[deleted user]]

I am a new group member but concidentally began reading TKAM out of personal interest a few days ago. I do not recall ever reading it in school, although I am familiar with the movie version. At the very least, I recall the court drama and know how the movie ends.

Although I expected the issues of race, culture and poverty to be important themes due to the setting of the book in the south during the depression era, it has also been interesting to note that the author also wove gender roles and religious beliefs into the story. Quite a big task to take on, especially when told though the eyes of a young girl.

Other than Scout, my favorite characters so far are Calpurnia and Miss Maudie Atkinson. They all seem to have strong personalities but also a sense of compassion and insightfulness.

Regarding Go Set a Watchman, I was not certain whether or not I wanted to (or even should) read it given all the controversy surrounding the publication of the book. A program I viewed on BookTV last weekend about Harper Lee was quite interesting, although it really did not help to guide my decision all that much. Ultimately, curiousity did get the better of me and I bought the hardbound edition while making the rounds at Costco on Tuesday. So I do plan to read it at some point in the future.

[Pink]

Greg wrote: "Noorilhuda and Pink, I have a great deal of respect for Toni Morrison and I understand where she's coming from, but I'm not sure I agree.

Of course, it's a wonderful thing to have books written f..."

Good points Greg. I do think that first and foremost, books should be read and chosen based on individual tastes and interests. If it sounds like a good story, then that can be more than enough reason to pick it up. Other considerations are secondary and mostly only come into play if you're studying the text, or actively looking for deeper meaning. I loved TKAM so much that I have been reluctant to re-read it as an adult, let alone try to pick it apart for the issues it raises, but I do think these are interesting discussion points. I think it's a well written, enjoyable book on a surface level, but for me it also stands up to the criticisms as it's a realistic look at things from Harper Lee's viewpoint.

Lisa, I'm glad you've been enjoying TKAM and I hope you also like GSAW. There's certainly been a lot of controversy around it, but I firmly feel that if you want to read it, that's just what you should do. Just as I choose not to read it and I'm happy with my personal decision, I don't think people should feel guilty about wanting to read it. Luckily we have free choice in the books we read :)

[[deleted user]]

Thanks Pink! :) Yes, we are so very lucky to have free choice about the books we do (or do not) read. Great point!