.

[Feliks]

The book is fine, adequate, does what its supposed to do..but yeah I'm a little tired of the endless, interminable, unceasing conversations about this frigging book, I can tell yuh that much. Cripes its a race-relations book, gee we've never seen that before? When are people gonna get over the novelty?

[Stella (NotAnEarlyBird)]

Michael wrote: "Or was that the author's intent and purpose? The characters for me, everything was boring and uninspired, along with subpar prose which didn't help. Were the characters supposed to be shallow caric..."

You are not alone my friend... This book is in the Top Three most boring and overrated books I have read.

[Candy]

The beginning of the book was a bit dry and boring, but after a few chapters it picked up and became one of the best books I read this year.

I loved the book and fell in love with Atticus.

[Anna]

I can understand why it's such a classic: it examines all the prejudices of the time through the eyes of a child.

But. . .

I found it very depressing. It moved slowly and the only thing that kept me reading was the fact that it was required for English class. I didn't truly enjoy it and wouldn't read it again. It was dull. It was boring. It was flat. It was such a downer. If I had nothing else to read, I wouldn't read it. And reading is absolutely necessary for life.

[Martha]

Richard wrote: "I read it as a standard book in English at school. Now 30 years on it is still on the sylabus. A lad in my daughter's year recently asked how to spell it as he did not know how to spell tequilla!! ..."

Neither do you.

[Atlantic Gem]

I did, but that's only because my mom forced me to read it. I typically end up hating most books I'm forced to read. Like Dracula. I wanted to drive a stake through that book.

[Iris]

I found the book to...not lack substance, because I guess the story was great way back when it was first published, but I guess it lacked vibrancy. It seemed so lethargic, even with some of the characters that were inquisitive and alive. But yeah, I don't get the hype. Even the movie, with the gorgeous and talented Gregory Peck was dull. The writing was adept but again, there was just something missing from it.

[[deleted user]]

compared to the movie, it is an amazing book. However i actually felt the the book got more interesting towards the end, not because it was ending, but i found that it picked up and the mistery of Boo Radley really intrigued me. Except i would prefer not to read it again, after studying it for around 3 months, stripping it down, i am no longer interested in the book. Maybe in a few more years i will read it again and have a different point of view od the book.

[Atlantic Gem]

JJ wrote: "LOL Atlantic Gem!"

Yeah, unfortunately, I have to return the book to my teacher… That's the only thing standing between that book and Stakesville...

[Chris]

This entire thread is blasphemy!!

[Atlantic Gem]

…Could you elaborate please?

[Paul]

I think what Chris is trying to say tongue in cheek is it is wrong to insult or think low of such an amazing piece of literature.

Oh and P>S> I couldnt give two didleys if I should "get over it" being a race relations book for me the story is Scout and how she sees things. Greatest character....EVER

[Chris]

Yes sir!

[Anna]

Iris wrote: "I found the book to...not lack substance, because I guess the story was great way back when it was first published, but I guess it lacked vibrancy. It seemed so lethargic, even with some of the cha..."

Lethargic is a good word, Iris. It just dragged on and on.

[C.J.]

TKM is very ironic; everything is seen through the innocence of childhood. Many of the things that Scout relates or says are funny because if we listen to her, all we can hear is the voice of a child getting it wrong. It's a very subtle and clever commentary on the time period, much like Austen on the Regency, certainly not just a boring book about prejudice full of flat characters.

[Liviana]

only stupid people who don't understand its subtleties would find this book 'flat' or 'boring'.

[Paul]

C.J. wrote: "TKM is very ironic; everything is seen through the innocence of childhood. Many of the things that Scout relates or says are funny because if we listen to her, all we can hear is the voice of a chi..."

Well put and accurate...Scout is an amazing POV character

[Paul]

Liviana wrote: "only stupid people who don't understand its subtleties would find this book 'flat' or 'boring'."
I wouldn't have put it so bluntly as people tend to be very sensitive around here but essentially I agree :)

[Iris]

Paul wrote: "Liviana wrote: "only stupid people who don't understand its subtleties would find this book 'flat' or 'boring'."
I wouldn't have put it so bluntly as people tend to be very sensitive around here b..."

That's a very narrow view of other people's perception of what the story offered. Everyone takes away different things when they read a book, so they might not like it now but if they re-read it in ten years they may think something different.

[Nirali]

No, I don't agree!! Not at all! To kill a mockingbird is a book about a young girl who just talks about her young life growing up in southern, deep, Alabama. If you think it is boring flat and dull, then don't read it!!

[Christie]

Michael wrote: "Or was that the author's intent and purpose? The characters for me, everything was boring and uninspired, along with subpar prose which didn't help. Were the characters supposed to be shallow caric..."

One of the BEST BOOKS OF ALL TIME!! Hands down! Poignant, intelligent, insightful, delightful, nostalgic, tragic, educational...THIS book has it all.

[Akov]

It is essentially a book for teenagers, especially people in their early to mid teens. If you read it in adulthood, you may very well be annoyed by the excessively neat little moral lessons about being tolerant not racist, being kind not heartless, being friendly and neighborly not insensitive, being understanding not obtuse, being kind not hurtful.

Too much of modern American fiction, TV and movies pushes us to accept this sort of moralistic stuff. But really it is only suited to the instruction of people age 13 to 17, approximately. After that you get to read the fiction for adults.

Feliks is right to be impatient with the umpty-umpth fictional lecture on race relations.

[Hannah]

Perhaps it was because the majority of us were forced to read it in school. I don't know about you, but any books required to read in HS are usually loathed

[Mark]

Shmucko, this is the great American novel. You, however, are boring as hell and short sighted. This is NOT merely a race relations book, this is a book about the rule of law’s application in a society and about the value one country lawyer can bring dignity to despite the law’s failures.

There’s so many morons on this site who can’t seem to get the proposition that great literature doesn’t happen by chance. It’s not like painting or music that gets discovered hundreds of years after the artist has died. Writer’s define their times and this novel defines its time better than almost any other. And to be perfectly honest, not only are you boring and far more so than this great story which became an Oscar winning movie, but you’re more boring than the story of how this novel came to be written in the first place. How I wish Goodreads would eliminate these stupid posts as to every great American novel

[Mark]

That's very sweet, Jamie Lynn, as I'm sure you are, but would you wanna go on SI.com
and listen to a debate about whether Michael Jordan or Jerry Rice were really great? Opinions are like... and every ones got them. The discussiond on this great book would be better focused on its intracacies and not whether fools or people who read Vampire books think its good enough. Besides, I'm sick of these like or not like posts on every great classic American novel. Books that are average do not often get taught yearly in American University's and high schools. At a certain point it becomes a book defines its times and is great beyond doubt, now the what's measured is the reader

[Mark]

I'm not judging, I'm calling them morons or was it mormons? Either way I love both of those so how is that judging?

[Mark]

and Mimi I'm hardly surprised you love Harry Potter

[Mark]

Michael it really wasnt a reaction to you. I get different people like different things. Im a bit of a curmudgeon

[Sharon Lee]

Nirali wrote: "No, I don't agree!! Not at all! To kill a mockingbird is a book about a young girl who just talks about her young life growing up in southern, deep, Alabama. If you think it is boring flat and dull..."

Iris wrote: "Paul wrote: "Liviana wrote: "only stupid people who don't understand its subtleties would find this book 'flat' or 'boring'."
I wouldn't have put it so bluntly as people tend to be very sensitive ..."

I read TKAM when it was first published and I was just starting high school. I thought it was an amazing book and was thrilled when I saw the movie and found they had followed the book word for word.

[Mark]

The thing about Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird” is that it’s a lawyer’s book. Not just because its about a lawyer and a case, but because it’s a textbook about the value of trial lawyers and about the value of ethical decent lawyers “for the people.” Trust me, if you ask most great lawyers what’s their favorite book about lawyering and trials, they will likely say this one.

[Lara]

Michael wrote: "Naivety and subtleties doesn't always equate to great literature, especially compared to other great novels with far more depth and ambiguity.

Jane Austen's magic was infusing her stories with gre..."

I understand that there will be those who dislike a book, but Harper Lee has plenty of wit. At least as much as Austen, just different, and perhaps missed by many, especially if you are reading it with a teacher who doesn't encourage close reading.

[Elaine]

No way. "To Kill a Mockingbird" is one of the all time greatest books. It has stood the test of time, it has not aged and Atticus Finch is a hero above all others. I suggest you reread the book. If you are underwhelmed, you are missing something.

[Linda]

To Kill a Mockingbird book should be given more credit considering the time and culture of when it was originally written. If you read with appreciation as if living during the 1960's rather than setting it against expectations of today your reading experience of this book will greatly improve. I loved the book and the movie. What you see in this book is an imperfect man doing what he knows is right while his children watch and learn. I agree that this is one of the greatest classics.

[Na'ama]

I think it is a good book, and that most of the fanfare it gets is because of the historic significance at the time it was written. At the same time, I don't know that I agree with the level of adoration that it still receives. It is a classic, yes. It is not my favorite book, and as a stand alone it misses a lot--I get sad when children spend half an academic school year going over the book and the vocabulary in it. However, if a teacher can use it for a more holistic way of looking at the time period and all its complications--and comparing them to today's--then it can do its job as a part of a whole program. As literary work per se, while it is a good book, I think that some of the fanfare it gets is overkill (forgive the pun).

[Mark]

Akovski, a false claim of rape in Alabama by a black man is not a neat little moral tale. The lawyers role therin is not simplistic either. Theres a lot more here than meets the eye.

[Michelle]

I had to read this book twice for school. This first time I was underwhelmed. I didn't get it and simply wasn't interested. I only read what I had to in order to get quetions on my quizzes correct.

The second time, three years later, I did get it and ever since I've thought this book was amazing.

Maybe try reading it again and see if you warm up to it. It's a peice of classic literature now that isn't going away any time soon and reads through the decades.

[Lara]

Michelle wrote: "I had to read this book twice for school. This first time I was underwhelmed. I didn't get it and simply wasn't interested. I only read what I had to in order to get quetions on my quizzes correct...."

I am curious, as a teacher, if there was anything different you remember the teacher did to help you understand it and enjoy it better, or if it was merely a difference in the way you approached it.

[Mark]

I remember my teacher really breaking down the jury trial and explaining the case's evidence and then talking about the town drunk who wasn't really a drunk and getting into the Atticus character and the Boo Radley character. (played by a very young Robert Duvall in movie) Her description of the town is exquisite

[Elaine]

I believe our teacher really focused on the divisiveness, not just the black/white tensions but the city vs country citizen, white trash vs good quality folk. I always felt that Tom's true crime was not falling for her advances and then having the audacity to feel sorry for her.

[Mark]

"YOU FELT SORRY FOR HER? You felt sorry for her? You a black man, felt sorry for her"

[Elaine]

Doesn't it blow your mind that that was the acceptable mindset in this country not that many years ago? I'm sure many people still feel that way but luckily they are smart enough to keep it to themselves.(most of the time)

[Lizzy]

I think having read it as an adult, with so much build up behind it, left me feeling deflated after I'd read TKAM. Not that it wasn't written beautifully, not that it was "boring" as others had said, but I couldn't connect with Scout's POV. To me, it seems uneventful.

I wouldn't say that I disliked it. I definitely didn't like it. I'm pretty neutral. One of those books you read, and then finish as if you never really started. I may read it again, to see if my opinion changes.

[Iris]

Elaine wrote: "I believe our teacher really focused on the divisiveness, not just the black/white tensions but the city vs country citizen, white trash vs good quality folk. I always felt that Tom's true crime wa..."

Agreed. He really brought it on himself. I mean, he knows the whites are in power, so why would he do something as stupid as rejecting her advances and hurting her feelings, then pitying her. That was not a bright move. But then again it was kind of a double edged sword. If he did sleep with her then she could accuse him of rape, but when he turned her down she accused him of it anyway.

I thought she was the best character. She was clever and cold. She knew what her status was in the community and she used it to her advantage. Sure you can argue that she was a mean bitch but you have to give it to her. She was an excellent 'villain.'

[Mark]

Lizzy, with all due respect, you must be a bit of a dope

[Mark]

Mimi, Mimi, calm down, okay. Just calm down, All i'm saying is youre a bit of a dope, okay?

[Mark]

We can talk anout it after cheerleading practice

[Mark]

I think that's the smartest thing you've said yet. But we're still on for after your cheerleading practice , right?

[Mark]

Perhaps you've noticed I called guys out for saying dumb stuff too

[Mark]

And it's tough to listen to someone who just referred to the great American novel as average with much seriousness

[Na'ama]

Elaine, I think that this is where literature becomes like any other art--a matter of opinion and view--not everyone likes the same paintings, and some may find a painting a masterpiece while others will not. I agree that To Kill a Mockingbird is a good book. Whether it is exceptional, or whether one SHOULD be overwhelmed by it (i.e as you said "if you are underwhelmed you are missing something), may be a matter not of missing something but of whether one connects with this particular book or not.
Personally, I found it to be good literature, but maybe not exceptionally so, and I am not sure the hype is always justified. It is my opinion, and you may not share it. This does not make me--or you--wrong or lacking perceptiveness. It makes us have differing experiences to this particular piece of literature.

(Na'ama Yehuda, author, "Outlawed Hope")