101 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-06 01:20:56)

Re: A great loss

A Racist is;

njc wrote:

Someone who drags race into a matter where it dooes not belong.....

That’d be….

njc wrote:

Is a doctor a racist for conditioning a possible diagnosis of sickle-cell anemia on black

njc wrote:

Is a company racist for making hair-care products particularly suited--or not suited--for the hair of people with black African ancestry?

njc wrote:

Is a doctor racist for conditioning a possible diagnosis of Tay-Sach's disease on Ashkenazi (or Cajun, or French-Canadian) ancestry?

njc wrote:

Is it racist to note that blacks in the USA are more likely to be murder victims than whites?  Is it racist to note that blacks in the USA are more likely to be murderers?  (Both can be explained by noting that this is principally an inner city issue--and that leads to more questions.)

….then?

Quote Post 101

102 Reply by njc

Re: A great loss

Think out loud.  The questions represent positions that people have actually taken, and they are forced on us as a society whether we like them or not.  Chew the questions, not the polemicist who forces them on you.  Find an answer that cover them all and that you believe can and should be defended.   If we can't answer them to everyone's satisfaction, the other guy wins--and you might not like what he is going to domwith that win.

The answer I threw out  has rough-edges.  It needs refinement before I can defend it in its whole.

Quote Post 102

103 Reply by Memphis Trace (edited by Memphis Trace 2016-03-06 10:51:07)

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:

For the record, my opinion of Atticus—on reading To Kill a Mockingbird a second time after having lived through years of Southern violence against blacks—was not that he was racist in the story...

I have absolutely no doubt that Atticus is a racist. He expresses that fact over and again.

Your surety from a partial reading of To Kill a Mockingbird as an adult that Atticus is shown to be a racist has piqued my interest as an aspiring critical reader enough that I intend to read it again. I've read it end to end twice and came away with the exact opposite opinion: that he was half again too good to be believed as a Southern-educated white man in Alabama in 1933. He qualified as a saint for me.

I very much think the issue concerning our conflicting opinions may be caused by the definition of the word 'Racist'.

After my last post in this thread, that we may define racist differently flashed through my mind, but I forgot to mention it. I am glad you thought to mention it. In most of the disputes I've had with men of good will in my life, it often comes down to having a different meaning for some of the words in the discussion.

Who knew? If you Google the following words; Racist definition ...then several definitive variations are found and some published definitions vary immensely.

Definition 1: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

The example you gave “Atticus says cheatin‘ a colored man is ten times worse than cheatin’ a white man,” I muttered. “Says it’s the worst thing you can do.” is the utterance of a racially sensitive saint by the definition of racist.

I think it is the utterance to his children of a man who recognizes how massively the system had always been stacked against blacks in the South, and for a person to cheat a black was really the moral equivalent of kicking a man you stood by and watched be bound and gagged.

Definition 2 : holding a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

There is nothing I see in the statement “Atticus says cheatin‘ a colored man is ten times worse than cheatin’ a white man,” I muttered. “Says it’s the worst thing you can do.” that suggests Atticus believes blacks are inherently inferior or that whites have a right to dominate blacks. Indeed he suggests that cheating blacks is the worst thing you can do. I believe it is a statement that condemns the racist system that blacks were faced with.

Definition 3:   a person who directs prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

I think by this definition, Atticus comes out as a racial saint in To Kill a Mockingbird. Although he recognized that the system had exalted whites to a superior position, he was never antagonistic toward blacks. And in my memory, he did not discriminate nor was he prejudiced against blacks. I thought he bent over frontwards to discriminate for blacks. I will be most interested on my third reading of the story to see chinks in his armor that I didn't see on my first two readings.

So Atticus is definitely a racist according to definition one; he may be or maybe not be racist according to definition two, but is definitely not a racist according to definition three.

In my two readings of To Kill a Mockingbird, I found it the story of a man who was fighting against the state-imposed circumstances that put blacks at an insurmountable disadvantage. I never believed he was beset with the widespread Southern fundamentalist-Christian belief at that time that blacks were cursed by God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham 

An excerpt:
The story's original objective was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites,[4] but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Jews, Christians, and Muslims as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery.[5]

I've always assumed (based my judgment upon) definition 1: And Atticus certainly believes there are differentials in terms of superiority between the races. He feels these differences because they appear to be self-evident within his society. To me he acts like a Veterinarian who cares very deeply for the animals that he treats but at the same time doesn't consider the dog he is treating to be on the same intellectual level as he, the Vet.

I believe To Kill a Mockingbird shows Atticus to believe the differences between the races to be Founding Fathers' codification of a system of slavery and Southern reconstruction laws http://www.history.com/topics/american- … nstruction meant to restrict freed blacks and ensure their availabilty as a labor force.

Atticus doesn't consider the colored-folk to be his equal; hell, he doesn't even consider white women to be equal to the intellect of white men.

Atticus certainly doesn't consider colored-folk to have equal access and protection to the systems he has access to. As a lawyer, he would have been acutely aware of the legal doctrine in US constitutional law that justified racial segregation. It was a doctrine firmly adhered to in Alabama right up to and through the Brown v. Board of Education decided some 20 years after To Kill a Mockingbird took place.

Atticus is clearly an elitist and clearly a racist if judged by definition 1:   

Here is a link to a wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal that may give you a bit of a look through my eyes; and a sense of why I didn't consider Atticus's recognition of blacks' unequal access to the protections of the law to be a result of their inferior intellect or morals.

However, although he is quietly confident of his racial superiority, Atticus never directs prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against those of a different race. In fact the is opposed to those actions, and as such is clearly not a racist according to definition 3:

It is most interesting to me that you and others see Atticus's racial superiority in To Kill a Mockingbird where I didn't see it until Go Set a Watchman. I plead guilty to your accusation of being a skim reader. Both times.

Both times I read it, I became so immersed that I never saw any indication that Atticus felt he was inherently superior to blacks. ¿Maybe, as the boys down at the pool hall say, third time will be a charm for me?

And another thing I never thought about Atticus, until you raised it in this discussion, was that he was a sexist. I think you base this in part on "In Mockingbird. Atticus lets his young daughter run around in overalls; he doesn’t force her into dresses, because he is a good dad. He understands that she’s a serious person, but when Scout voices her indignation that women aren’t allowed to serve on juries, Atticus says, “I doubt if we’d ever get a complete case tried—the ladies’d be interrupting to ask questions.” He’s a good dad, a good patriarch—but he’s raising Scout into another version of permanent childhood. He doesn’t think a woman has the moral capacity of a man." Quote from link above.

I've emboldended the last sentence in your quoted material. I will note that the writer assigned the motive to Atticus of believing that a woman doesn't have the moral capacity of a man as his reason for his humorous explanation of why women weren't allowed to serve on the jury. I think this is an opinion of a person looking to find flaws in Atticus, at least the opinion of a person unlike me who confesses to being too immersed in the story to take this seriously. As I recall, Scout was doing everything she could to be a "boy" to gain equal access to the world with Jem and Dill. I guess that is why I would have read that as Atticus trying to be humorous, if I attached any motive at all.

Anyway, given this writer's accusation of sexism, I now am alerted to look for sexism in Atticus on my 3rd reading. I will try to keep in perspective, though, of just how awkward for the story for Lee to incorporate a father explaining to a 6-year old, regardless that she was as precocious as Scout, that https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/jury-ones-peers

An excerpt:
As late as 1961, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld a Florida law automatically exempting women from jury service. According to the court:

Despite the enlightened emancipation of women from the restrictions and protections of bygone years, and their entry into many parts of community life formerly considered to be reserved to men, woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life. We cannot say that it is constitutionally impermissible for a State, acting in pursuit of the general welfare, to conclude that a woman should be relieved from the civic duty of jury service unless she herself determines that such service is consistent with her own special responsibilities.

The ACLU, as part of its program to desegregate the judicial system in the South, included claims on behalf of women in cases it brought to stop racial discrimination in jury selection. In one of those cases filed in Georgia in the early 1970s, we challenged state laws that excluded women from serving on juries and allowed them to opt-out of jury duty.

I would add that it was only after years of women taking to the streets in America, that the white man's Constitution was amended in America to grant women the right to vote in 1920, a mere 15 years before To Kill a Mockingbird took place. Certainly not enough time for Alabama to subject the poor things the august responsibility of serving on a jury trying a black man accused of violating a white woman.

So there you have it;

Atticus is definitely a racist.

Atticus is definitely not a racist.

You can alter your POV to make either of these 'facts' true.

I am reminded about how much further I have to go in my aspirations to become a good critical thinker about what I read. I will confess to reading To Kill a Mockingbird a first time at a time in my life when I was turning over every Southern rock looking for a white civil rights hero. I believe that is why I was stunned 50 years later when I read Go Set a Watchman—to discover that Atticus was indeed a died-in-the-wool racist.

It also explains to me why I found Atticus to be a flat, and unbelievable character on reading To Kill a Mockingbird a second time, some five years before reading Go Set a Watchman. I was missing all the hints you were getting, the part of the iceberg Lee elided from To Kill a Mockingbird, to dignify my perception of the story of Atticus as the white hero I was looking for.

It also explains to me why I found Atticus a much greater hero after reading Go Set a Watchman. It gave me hope and a model for being a father and grandfather that would recognize and overcome the moral corruption pressed on me the by the history I endured and by my preconceptions to hide my moral corruption under the sort of good counsel Atticus dispensed to Scout.

Cheers!

Cheers to you too, Dill. As always, I really appreciate the energy you bring with your POV.

Memphis

Quote Post 103

104 Reply by vern

Re: A great loss

Sorry I will miss this lively and interesting discussion in order to play golf for a few days in Charleston SC. The sacrifices we must make, but maybe I'll be lucky and sober enough to peek in on occasion. Carry on. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 104

Re: A great loss

vern wrote:

Sorry I will miss this lively and interesting discussion in order to play golf for a few days in Charleston SC. The sacrifices we must make, but maybe I'll be lucky and sober enough to peek in on occasion. Carry on. Take care. Vern

Check in with Pat Conroy's spirit when you're forced to wait for that slow-assed group ahead of you.

Memphis

Quote Post 105

106 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-06 18:41:33)

Re: A great loss

njc wrote:

Think out loud.  The questions represent positions that people have actually taken, and they are forced on us as a society whether we like them or not.  Chew the questions, not the polemicist who forces them on you.  Find an answer that cover them all and that you believe can and should be defended.   If we can't answer them to everyone's satisfaction, the other guy wins--and you might not like what he is going to domwith that win.

The answer I threw out  has rough-edges.  It needs refinement before I can defend it in its whole.

The point is that any that definition you eventually arrive at will never be correct. It might stack up for you as an individual, but it will not unilaterally satisfy mankind as the definitive explanation,  of which explicit processes of thought, or action either explains or can be explained by that word.  The definition and application of racism constitutes different things to different people, different organizations, different cultures, different legal systems etc. etc.

Racism is a variable concept. In it's purest form, it is thinking that your own race is superior to another race. I think most people in the world (if honest with themselves) are guilty of that. I know I am from time to time, but feel it is part of the human condition and instinctive. It is complex and yet simple, a part of our tribal survival disposition, a part of our nature as a species. I think of this as passive racism.

Active racism, I believe, is where a person directs prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

There is a gulf between these two definitions and 'racism' is often confused (at least here in Europe) with nationalism and the conflict between religious divides.

I hate the French, I'm English and supposed to. Our countries have been at war for most of recorded history. The Germans too, after World War one and Two. This is a concept, for whilst living in Berlin amongst my German friends a pretty girl turned my head and I married her. She is French (the only one who cannot cook) and is hanging around our house to this day. I am nationalistic but without being xenophobic.

Back to the story that we are discussing. Do I think Atticus is an active racist? No, certainly not.

Do I consider Atticus a racist because he feels himself of a superior race? Absolutely. Take Calpurnia his African American housekeeper. Barely one generation away from being a slave. Atticus trusts Calpurnia implicitly, he is extremely fond of her and kind to her. Is he considerate? No. Does he treat her as his equal? Could Atticus envisage a colored female being capable of doing his job? Not on your nelly!  Why? Because of her race and her gender. 

Why does this matter? Well, I expect a man of that era in that situation to behave as such. Atticus never directs prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism towards the colored folk. In that he is enlightened; he is a kind man who cares about justice and fairness.

However, he performs his role within and around the status quo. He is passive and kind and working with the world the way it is. He is a nice racist and people either love or despise him for that.

I read the book as an angry young rebel and to me Attitus was a stooge, every rebel's nightmare; the conformist. The gentle fair-minded man who tells you everything is fine, when it is not. He is papering nice, attractive wallpaper over the cracked wall, over the mold of decay.

I wanted my Atticus to rage against the system. I wanted a Spartacus or a Sydney Carton; I wanted the kind of Atticus who knew that given the right circumstances that of course Calpurnia could do his his job. I wanted the kind of Atticus that'd put his neck on the line for Tom, the kind of Atticus who take the drop for Tom and get gunned down in his place.

To me 'To Kill a Mocking Bird' is a story about the way it was and fair-minded nice man working within the conventions of that system. I wanted a story about enlightened and courageous people challenging the system; ripping the system a new arsehole. I wanted the radical... the sacrifice in battle of the lion Atticus for the cause, not the cop-out sacrifice of the tethered goat, Tom.   
 
It is not to be, hence the disappointment within my subjective view upon the Novel.

I'll talk about the Atticus character all day long, but what I don't want is a heated exchange about racism per say. I'm not an active racist, I can see past skin tone and hair type. The battle we all face is good against evil. Within that conflict I'd have liked to see good (Atticus) fully engage and take on evil rather than work around it.

Quote Post 106

107 Reply by njc

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:
njc wrote:

Think out loud.  The questions represent positions that people have actually taken, and they are forced on us as a society whether we like them or not.  Chew the questions, not the polemicist who forces them on you.  Find an answer that cover them all and that you believe can and should be defended.   If we can't answer them to everyone's satisfaction, the other guy wins--and you might not like what he is going to domwith that win.

The answer I threw out  has rough-edges.  It needs refinement before I can defend it in its whole.

The point is that any that definition you eventually arrive at will never be correct. It might stack up for you as an individual, but it will not unilaterally satisfy mankind as the definitive explanation ...

True of all philosophy.  So ... we should stop asking?

Quote Post 107

Re: A great loss

njc wrote:
Dill Carver wrote:
njc wrote:

Think out loud.  The questions represent positions that people have actually taken, and they are forced on us as a society whether we like them or not.  Chew the questions, not the polemicist who forces them on you.  Find an answer that cover them all and that you believe can and should be defended.   If we can't answer them to everyone's satisfaction, the other guy wins--and you might not like what he is going to domwith that win.

The answer I threw out  has rough-edges.  It needs refinement before I can defend it in its whole.

The point is that any that definition you eventually arrive at will never be correct. It might stack up for you as an individual, but it will not unilaterally satisfy mankind as the definitive explanation ...

True of all philosophy.  So ... we should stop asking?

Yes, definitely. Confucius did and we should follow her example.

Quote Post 108

109 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-06 18:36:50)

Re: A great loss

Memphis Trace wrote:

…I will confess to reading To Kill a Mockingbird a first time at a time in my life when I was turning over every Southern rock looking for a white civil rights hero. I believe that is why I was stunned 50 years later when I read Go Set a Watchman—to discover that Atticus was indeed a died-in-the-wool racist.

I was a teenage nightmare, full of misplaced romance, juvenile ideology, passion, rebellion, lust, anger, love and acne when I first read To Kill a Mockingbird. I was within a class full of multi-racial pupils and felt anger at the social situation portrayed within the novel. My English (British Isles) and European history was up to scratch but I had little insight or understanding in respect of the history of slavery and/or the Southern States of America at that time. I was very naive and without exposure to the situation, my personal discovery of the depth of the racial division between whites and blacks within Mockingbird was a new concept and it shocked me. There is no other word for it.

At the time my head was full of literary heroes and stories where heroes change the world. I think that we’d just finished Dickens ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ and to resolve the major conflict within the story, one man gives his life for another and I was swollen with pride at the courage of that. I too was expecting Atticus fight the injustice in a much more dramatic fashion; maybe to become a martyr for the cause.

But, it is just not that kind of book and I didn’t understand that. It is a social comment, an extended cameo of that time and place, the adult reminiscing the child’s-eye view.

Atticus is not a bad man, he is kind and makes a real effort to treat the black folk fairly and with respect. It’s a big thing within the context of that book, but it was lost on me because I was sat next to a colored kid who was to all intents and proposes, was my brother.

Atticus doesn’t buck the system, let alone destroy it. He merely does his job and in an efficient manner and is polite and fair in the process. He is a white lawyer defending a wrongly accused black man and that alone makes him a hero? In that world maybe it does but if you took the skin color out of the story they’d be little or no story and that’s exactly how I saw it.  A white lawyer providing a fair legal defence to a black man was no sensation in my world; the clash of the races held no connotation to me and it is that clash that is the sensational aspect of the tale.

Atticus is condescending toward women. He clearly feels that a male is the superior being of the species.  Okay maybe not in the cooking, cleaning and raising the kids department where the female is adapt, but he certainly doesn’t consider they have the intellectual capacity to do a mans job. Nobody in the novel seems to care about that or pull him up for it and so I suppose that it is the norm in his world.

I have to explain here that I was raised in an Island that has a long and ancient linage of female leaders (Queens); Boudicea through Queen Bess to the current Queen Elizabeth II. So I was raised with a Queen as our leader, the Prime Minister was female (Thatcher) and my mother ran the household and at school my most respected teachers were women and the head mistress (principle) was also female.  My older sister was/is a tyrant with IQ of 125 and the boss of everything she’s ever in involved with.

The concept of a female being in some way inferior to a male was somehow unthinkable. I grew to understand that in terms universally held thinking upon the matter, I was in a minority.

Anyway, save to say that the problems I perceive within ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ are within me. The novel isn’t bad, I merely don’t understand it. I couldn’t relate when I first read it and that has prejudiced me for life.

Memphis Trace wrote:

. As always, I really appreciate the energy you bring with your POV.

I too appreciate the time, effort and tolerance that the members on this site extend to me. I am strong minded and vociferous but my opinions and ideas are personal and I don’t want to impose those opinions onto anyone. I can be annoying, I realise that, but I’m merely trying to articulate why I feel the way I do. Sometimes I struggle and sometimes it is a real surprise to me when I analyse my feelings and understand the reasons, because often the cause or drivers are subconscious, subliminal or instinctive rationale. I’ve spent most of my life being wrong about most things and try to be as open-minded as my egocentric character will allow. Anyway Memphis, I always value your thoughts and feelings, especially if they challenge mine. You have the real experience and wisdom gathered from it. You are of a noble persuasion, it is evident within your words within forums and the literature you produce. We are so lucky to have you here.

Cheers, Dill

Quote Post 109

110 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

I don't quite understand why a flawed character means the book is bad, if I'm frank. I don't understand at all! I think great literature is filled with flawed characters and unfinished business and a lot of "this is simply not enough" undertones which force one to consider what might be enough. I don't think Atticus is at all a stock character. Maybe I'll change my mind on a reread. I think the flaws you cite (Dill) only complicate his character.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'm no Sydney Carton. I'm not a force. I'm not a hero. I'm an inadequate mess of flaws who speaks the wrong thing as often as I stumble upon something right. We need our Sydney Cartons in literature, absolutely. They thrill the soul, they pound the heart. But life is for the rest of us, as well. I think Atticus is so loved because somehow, despite his enormous imperfection, he does try to do the right thing. I think perhaps I like him because he is not Sydney Carton. (Although he was imperfect too, wasn't he?)

When Atticus stays with Tom Robinson at the jail to face off the crowd who wants to lynch him, he is Sydney Carton, if only for a moment, in my book. Then Scout stands between her father and the crowd, and her gentle words push them home. It's the way her friendship with them shames them, and reminds them of their own humanity, that makes the book for me.

To Kill a Mockingbird is no grand epic, like A Tale of Two Cities. It's a small book which offered a spark of hope fifty years ago, and for me, it continues to live on that flare. Perhaps because of the very things which make you dislike it, Dill. Atticus is flawed -- absolutely. His courage is born out of flaws, and it is sometimes misplaced. I imagine a man slightly stooped when I read him, his shoulders bearing the weight of day after day of legal drudgery. I think he is probably rather boring in person, with a voice one has to lean into to catch. He is likely bookish half because he'd like to be left alone. His hair is probably sprinkled with silver. His children watch him wryly, amazed that he can survive the night given his age. He doesn't look like a hero, and he doesn't act like a hero. I imagine a lot of sadness in him, which is never shown in the pages. His wife is gone, and it is his task to raise his daughter alone. He relies on Calpurnia, and he does the best he can for Scout, not really understanding her but (I think) wanting desperately to do right by her. He's a simple man who is assigned the job, "Defend Tom Robinson." He does so within his scope of integrity and ability.

It is not enough. That is implicit in every line of the book, for me. And if readers have rallied around Atticus and placed laurels on his head, it is perhaps because they identify with him. He is absolutely not enough.

Nor is this book. It can't tell the whole story! Nor should that burden be placed on it, I think. It's a voice within a sea of voices, which is what I so love about literature. I've said I read the classics like primary documents. That's this book for me.  It's a voice within the larger story. A part of the tapestry of literature and history. That may be a flawed way to read? Perhaps I will refine with more books.

I'll be taking another peek at Mockingbird, Dill, based on your criticism here, as well as my read of Go Set a Watchman. I'm afraid I'm not as good at the critical thinking thing as you are, or perhaps I just take a different angle. I sometimes have to read a book a few times to begin to take it apart. I hadn't really read literature until a couple years after joining this site, so I'm fairly new at it and bumble along at it in my unrefined but well-meaning way. I do love that you've pointed out so much in the book to be criticized.

I think I'll be the one to bow out of this conversation now. I've said how I feel, which I fear may be labeled "sentimental" or sheeplike, and I'm just not in the right frame of mind to take that in good humor. There's really nothing left to say on my end but that I continue to like the book, which I do!

It's been a rich conversation for me, gentlemen. Truly! smile

Quote Post 110

111 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-07 01:22:44)

Re: A great loss

corra wrote:

I don't quite understand


I figured as much

corra wrote:

why a flawed character means the book is bad,

corra wrote:

if I'm frank.

No you are not Frank. You are corra.

corra wrote:

I don't understand at all!

clearly 

corra wrote:

I think great literature is filled with flawed characters and unfinished business and a lot of "this is simply not enough" undertones which force one to consider what might be enough. I don't think Atticus is at all a stock character. Maybe I'll change my mind on a reread. I think the flaws you cite (Dill) only complicate his character.

In my opinion a character flaw would be if he backhanded one of those damn kids in frustration of if he had an affair with Miss Maudie and used maybe if he used Calpurnia for sex during the night and maintained his segregationist beliefs during the day. What if Lee had have him do something that he lied about, or if he had a secret gun that he’d take out to the woods and shoot stuff with it. Maybe if he lost his cool and struck Bob Ewell after Bob spat in his face (a floored character). Maybe if he murdered Bob Ewell (instead of thinking that Jem actually did it! Idiot).

Sydney Carlton was gloriously flawed. Atticus Finch isn’t flawed in that sense, he is flawed because he is a bloody robot who sometimes fluffs his lines. Atticus Finch lacks character flaws, he is not enough of a character to have flaws, all he has is voids. Voids are not good flaws which enrich a character, the voids provide the vacuum that sticks the cardboard to his shape.

You love the book. That’s fine because you are allowed to; and all of the reasons that you like it (or anyone else likes it) are perfectly valid. I’m not being patronising or sarcastic, I genuinely feel that Mockingbird is a great novel, an all-time classic and millions of people love it too. It puts most of the titles I read and love into the shade.

That’s fine!

I’m not asking anyone else to dislike the novel because I do. I’m not trying to persuade you to dislike it, I’m trying to explain to the conversation why I dislike the book. I don’t care if I’m the only one in the world who dislikes it.

No issues!

Apart from;

Sentimental or sheeplike? 

I don't understand; ewe said that you look like a sheep?  :)

Quote Post 111

112 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

I’m not asking anyone else to dislike the novel because I do. I’m not trying to persuade you to dislike it, I’m trying to explain to the conversation why I dislike the book. I don’t care if I’m the only one in the world who dislikes it.

I know you don't expect to convert anyone and are merely explaining your perspective. I get that. I wasn't trying to convert you either. I was speaking to the conversation too. You (within the conversation) have implied that a person who would like the book is a sentimental sheep who auto-buys silly stories about serious matters.

I've been trying to put into words what I love about the book in response to that, because I disagree that everyone who reads the book (likes the book, loves the book, buys the book) is a sentimental idiot or a person who buys based entirely on the direction of those who have determined what is politically correct. I see depth in the novel where you see void.

I should have stepped back and recognized that your position on the banality of the book's readership is completely off topic and certainly subjective in the extreme. Now you are saying that the reasons people have for liking the book are perfectly valid, that the book is not bad at all, and I'm left wondering if I've stepped into some other dimension.

I'm backing off for that reason, not because I care one iota whether or not you like the book. I love that you're sharing some piping good criticism of the novel! Sincerely, I love the way you tear it apart. Good stuff!!

I continue after eight years, though, to find your inclination to dismiss whole groups of people (particularly Americans) as fools. Oh, there are some stupid people. But I think there are some relatively excellent people, full of good thoughts, full of depth, not easily manipulated or distracted, who like To Kill a Mockingbird as well, for reasons unattended to by your grand, sweeping statements about the inanity of the book's reading base as a whole.

This is how me met and it continues to make me shake my head.

I would say more, but a commercial just came through announcing that the latest new release is out, and I have to read it and love it sentimentally because I am an American and generally follow the lead I see in the media. Baaaaaa. x

Quote Post 112

113 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-07 20:54:04)

Re: A great loss

corra wrote:

You (within the conversation) have implied that a person who would like the book is a sentimental sheep who auto-buys silly stories about serious matters.

Did I imply that? I'm not denying it, but that must have been me at my most vociferous.

My eldest daughter once called me a 'book bully'. Apparently I become so enamored with titles that I read and like, that I make her read them "against her will". That's a bit strong, although I may have tried to encourage her towards a novel or two...  Oh, and I do tend to buy books that I like, as presents for other people at birthdays and Xmas etc. but honestly, who doesn't?

Anyone who buys a book in this day and age is a hero.

corra wrote:

I continue after eight years, though, to find your inclination to dismiss whole groups of people (particularly Americans) as fools.

If you think that, then you are a fool. An American fool. smile

I am inclined to dismiss widespread cultural 'things' rather than a people. It might happen to be that MacDonald's is in my sights. I'm decrying a principle, it's the mass marketed bland brand and 'have nice day' thing that gets my goat, not every individual in the United States of America. I know I wounded you deeply when I was irreverent about 'The Waltons' but again I was making a point about a 'type' of story rather than insulting the entire population of a sub continent.

I love many things American; I glance over my left shoulder to my shelves, my favorite shelf, and there is Robert Mason, Stephen E Ambrose, Stephen Crane,T. S. Eliot, Carson McCullers, Michael Shaara, Jeff Shaara, Tim O'Brien, Tirzah L Goodwin, Stephen Leather, Karl Marlantes, James Fenimore Cooper, Justin Cronin, Cormac McCarthy, Kurt Vonnegut, Margret Mitchell, John Steinbeck, Faulkner, Herman Melville, Stephen King, Hemingway, Thom Jones.... and there will be more if I dig around.

Shelf below; DVD's and there's cherished, beloved movies from; Oliver Stone, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese,Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, Clint Eastwood, Quentin Tarantino... the list goes on

How could I possibly love and admire that lot with a passion whilst thinking them all fools?

Wait... I did instigate a smear campaign about Idaho once. Centered upon the Potato Museum.

Perhaps you're right!     

corra wrote:

... but a commercial just came through announcing that the latest new release is out, and I have to read it and love it sentimentally because I am an American and generally follow the lead I see in the media.

Hold on a minute! When I made the comment about people being swept along following the next big media thing I had no specific national agenda! I was actually thinking about sensations like the '50 shades of grey' take-up here in the UK.

corra wrote:

Now you are saying that the reasons people have for liking the book are perfectly valid, that the book is not bad at all, and I'm left wondering if I've stepped into some other dimension.

Impossible. If you are reading Mockingbird there is only the two dimensions.

What I mean by expressing that the reasons people have for liking the book are perfectly valid, is that they absolutely are. People like stuff that other people don't like. Sometimes the variation between different peoples partialities is a gulf.

However, my reasons for disliking the book do not invalidate anyone else’s reasons for liking the book, just like anyone else’s reasons for liking the book do not invalidate the reasons that I dislike it. Everyone’s opinion is valid and no one’s opinion is more valid than any other.

I am completely right.

You are utterly right.

Quote Post 113

114 Reply by corra (edited by corra 2016-03-08 22:19:21)

Re: A great loss

Hm. I am a disadvantage by not being in your head.

I explained myself poorly above, because I had slipped in here for just a moment yesterday on the way to work, and typed that out fast. I see I didn't even finish one of my sentences!

For the record, I'm also writing this quite fast, because I have to write a whole paper in about three hours tonight. So if I sound unreasonable, and dare I say it surly, please pardon me! I am speaking with heart-shaped cartoon eyes and would be all smiles in person. The other morning as well. I am typing the shorthand version of my effervescing remarks. x

Hold on a minute! When I made the comment about people being swept along following the next big media thing I had no specific national agenda! I was actually thinking about sensations like the '50 shades of grey' take-up here in the UK.

You have often (often) complained about your version of Americans (a facet of American culture?), with ardor. I generally don't care (really, I don't), but since To Kill a Mockingbird is an American book, and your illustration of its readership in this thread sounded very similar to your past illustrations of Americans (a facet of American culture, I now realize), I experienced a Pavlov echo and leapt into it as I am both American and a fan of To Kill a Mockingbird as well as The Waltons AND Little House on the Prairie. How now, sir! One can enjoy a bit of pleasant and still take a book seriously. However, I said you "implied," not that you said. Somewhere up there.

I am inclined to dismiss widespread cultural 'things' rather than a people.

True enough! I'd completely forgotten you have often remarked on favorite American writers! And I have to assume you like me, as I am a piping good egg! Widespread remarks on cultural things makes a lot more sense, given that I know you to be mighty decent. I always wondered about that inconsistency in an otherwise exemplary record. That eight-years-ago argument was left unresolved. wink

I'm stressed about everything and not myself. If I had time, I'd probably make a more sensible show in this thread. That is my story. I was reading your remarks on readers of To Kill a Mockingbird, F, while up to my elbows in Shakespeare and John Donne. Implications about the "lack of seriousness" in people who read To Kill a Mockingbird made a poor partner to my labors.

I respect your suggestion (if I've understood you right in this thread) that To Kill a Mockingbird sentimentalizes racism and makes it "palatable" for a skimmer. I don't know that I agree, but I respect the suggestion and will be thinking about it on a reread. Having thought about it away from this thread, I can concede that the book, though I don't believe it was written for this purpose, might convince people they've read enough about racism and can feel informed about it. That's an issue for sure.

I actually looked up a bunch of literary criticism on the novel this morning, to explore when I can! That's how much I've loved this conversation, which is not reflected in the bit I've said in the last couple days. I say again I appreciate your candor!

(I agree with your daughter.)

You receive a gigantic kiss on the cheek from me, though you are awfully provoking, now and then. I never am. xox

Quote Post 114

115 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-11 13:49:25)

Re: A great loss

corra wrote:

...you have often remarked on favorite American writers!

True. For instance I have repeatedly extolled the literary virtues of say, Hemingway (who happens to be American) to those who are less than impressed with his work (who have also happened to be Americans); although I have to say that I’d never considered the Nationality aspect of these exchanges until l now.

Dill Carver wrote:

...My eldest daughter once called me a 'book bully'. Apparently I become so enamoured with titles that I read and like, that I make her read them "against her will". That's a bit strong, although I may have tried to encourage her towards a novel or two...

corra wrote:

(I agree with your daughter.)

I considered my ‘book bully’ tag and realised that I’d been duped; the reverse psychology thing. My daughter has actually encouraged me (quite forcibly) to read plenty of titles that she’d consumed and wanted to share; The Kite Runner; The Book Thief;  The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas; The Lovely Bones; The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time; Goodnight Mister Tom… to name a few (the list goes on). Far more titles than I have ever recommended to her.

And you agree with her? Of course you do… I listed some of the American authors upon my shelf of favourites earlier and, M Shaara; J Shaara, Faulkner, Melville, Mitchell, Crane... possibly more; they all exist there because of your direct influence. Books that I probably would not have encountered, own and had the pleasure of, if you hadn’t recommended them. I’m not complaining, far from it. Crane? Red Badge; once read and never forgotten. Mitchell’s little ditty? Once read it becomes a part of you… it is always within your mind. The others have also expanded my mind and sense of appreciation beyond measure.

corra wrote:

...you are awfully provoking...

When it comes literature and discussion upon it I am strapped for outlets and starved of interaction. This site is about the only place where I can talk about literature in a group, and I suppose I am overly enthusiastic.  It is clear (in retrospect) that the enthusiasm leads to me being exuberant and opinionated and that might appear to be bombastic and arrogant.

If it comes across as bombastic and arrogant then it is bombastic and arrogant.

Sorry about that. I’ve been back over the thread and yes indeed, my contribution has been overbearing. I realise that I am incompetent within such a forum. I left the loosely formed structure of the British Comprehensive School system for the Army at the age of fourteen days past my sixteenth birthday.  I’ve had no adult education in the academic sense and I’ve never attended University or College. I fear this has left me ill-equipped or lacking in both experience and etiquette when it comes to conducting myself within a cultured forum of discussion or debate.

I sincerely apologise for any provocation that my overbearing nature has caused to anyone, be that on an individual or national scale. I am mortified to realise that within the expression of my opinion I have caused insult, annoyance and offence.

I openhandedly admit to the crime and would only ask, in my defence that you consider my intent. I honestly did not set out to cause such grief. I am ignorant. A bumbling ignorant oaf. This I have known all of my life, but sometimes I forget and when that occurs, the only possible outcome is that I’m reminded of it with a bump.

No worries! I aim to atone for my behavior and am dedicated to the task of reigning myself in.

That is, until the next time the oaf emerges. smile

Quote Post 115

Re: A great loss

Like or dislike, those of us on here endeavoring to create a lasting piece of literature can only hope that one day our writing can inspire such a heated debate.

Quote Post 116

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:
corra wrote:

...you have often remarked on favorite American writers!

True. For instance I have repeatedly extolled the literary virtues of say, Hemingway (who happens to be American) to those who are less than impressed with his work (who have also happened to be Americans); although I have to say that I’d never considered the Nationality aspect of these exchanges until l now.

Dill Carver wrote:

...My eldest daughter once called me a 'book bully'. Apparently I become so enamoured with titles that I read and like, that I make her read them "against her will". That's a bit strong, although I may have tried to encourage her towards a novel or two...

corra wrote:

(I agree with your daughter.)

I considered my ‘book bully’ tag and realised that I’d been duped; the reverse psychology thing. My daughter has actually encouraged me (quite forcibly) to read plenty of titles that she’d consumed and wanted to share; The Kite Runner; The Book Thief;  The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas; The Lovely Bones; The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time; Goodnight Mister Tom… to name a few (the list goes on). Far more titles than I have ever recommended to her.

And you agree with her? Of course you do… I listed some of the American authors upon my shelf of favourites earlier and, M Shaara; J Shaara, Faulkner, Melville, Mitchell, Crane... possibly more; they all exist there because of your direct influence. Books that I probably would not have encountered, own and had the pleasure of, if you hadn’t recommended them. I’m not complaining, far from it. Crane? Red Badge; once read and never forgotten. Mitchell’s little ditty? Once read it becomes a part of you… it is always within your mind. The others have also expanded my mind and sense of appreciation beyond measure.

corra wrote:

...you are awfully provoking...

When it comes literature and discussion upon it I am strapped for outlets and starved of interaction. This site is about the only place where I can talk about literature in a group, and I suppose I am overly enthusiastic.  It is clear (in retrospect) that the enthusiasm leads to me being exuberant and opinionated and that might appear to be bombastic and arrogant.

If it comes across as bombastic and arrogant then it is bombastic and arrogant.

Sorry about that. I’ve been back over the thread and yes indeed, my contribution has been overbearing. I realise that I am incompetent within such a forum. I left the loosely formed structure of the British Comprehensive School system for the Army at the age of fourteen days past my sixteenth birthday.  I’ve had no adult education in the academic sense and I’ve never attended University or College. I fear this has left me ill-equipped or lacking in both experience and etiquette when it comes to conducting myself within a cultured forum of discussion or debate.

I sincerely apologise for any provocation that my overbearing nature has caused to anyone, be that on an individual or national scale. I am mortified to realise that within the expression of my opinion I have caused insult, annoyance and offence.

I openhandedly admit to the crime and would only ask, in my defence that you consider my intent. I honestly did not set out to cause such grief. I am ignorant. A bumbling ignorant oaf. This I have known all of my life, but sometimes I forget and when that occurs, the only possible outcome is that I’m reminded of it with a bump.

No worries! I aim to atone for my behavior and am dedicated to the task of reigning myself in.

That is, until the next time the oaf emerges. smile

Quote Post 117

118 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:

I realise that I am incompetent within such a forum. I left the loosely formed structure of the British Comprehensive School system for the Army at the age of fourteen days past my sixteenth birthday.  I’ve had no adult education in the academic sense and I’ve never attended University or College. I fear this has left me ill-equipped or lacking in both experience and etiquette when it comes to conducting myself within a cultured forum of discussion or debate.

You are a bright light in these forums and on this site, Dill. Your exuberance is contagious in the very best way. It would be a great loss if you change a wit.

I misunderstood. I should have just asked you what you meant the other day. I've always known you to be honest, honorable, and approachable. If there is a fault here, it is mine.

Please pardon me for my own oafishness, Dill. Your explanation about what you mean when you say "Americans" makes complete sense, and now that I know what you're talking about, I agree whole-heartedly. (I watch the news and stand equally appalled, by the way, by Trump.)

I said you had "implied," but on reflection, it's as plausible that I perceived. For that I sincerely apologize. As I said, I should have asked. But more than that, I should have known.

Please don't take anything I've said here to heart. 

I listed some of the American authors upon my shelf of favourites earlier and, M Shaara; J Shaara, Faulkner, Melville, Mitchell, Crane... possibly more; they all exist there because of your direct influence. Books that I probably would not have encountered, own and had the pleasure of, if you hadn’t recommended them. I’m not complaining, far from it. Crane? Red Badge; once read and never forgotten. Mitchell’s little ditty? Once read it becomes a part of you… it is always within your mind. The others have also expanded my mind and sense of appreciation beyond measure.

My grandmother used to send me books every Christmas. She knew, when I didn't, that I would love literature. My siblings never received books, as I recall. I'm sad to say most sat on my bookshelf unread until recently. I had no idea I was interested in literature until I came here and met you. I expected to go to college and major in creative writing. I decided to change to a literature major because you spoke so incredibly well, on such a vast array of topics, and with such rich enthusiasm. I wanted to know some of what you know, and experience writing beyond my own scribbles. I changed to a literature major because of you.

I've known Gone with the Wind and To Kill a Mockingbird nearly all my life, but that's hardly literary knowledge, and is clearly seated within America. I lack the worldly experience and ability to deeply assess literature  that you have. Our shreds are an enormous exercise for me, on that front. They've vastly improved my ability to "see" books, I think, and that is all you.

I can thank you for A Tale of Two Cities (which is, I agree, an utter masterpiece) and Hemingway (whom I found I loved after conversations with you). I didn't realize you'd read War & Peace until recently, and your comments on that novel have renewed my interest. I read half a couple years ago and I liked it, but I laid it aside one day and never got back to it. You've made me want to finish it. Likewise Tess, though your lovely oafish self quite disliked it! Your reasons for disliking it pique my curiosity. The same with Mockingbird.

I don't know what I'm talking about most of the time, Dill. I bump along like you do, and am prone to misunderstanding what is plainly obvious. I'd hate it if anything I have said here dampens your enthusiasm. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm wholly enriched by your enthusiasm.

I openhandedly admit to the crime and would only ask, in my defence that you consider my intent.

I can absolutely do that. But there was no crime, Dill. Only miscommunication.

I aim to atone for my behavior and am dedicated to the task of reigning myself in.

Don't reign in, Doc. I'd miss the bumps. x

Quote Post 118

Re: A great loss

Dill, you do offer such glorious cynicism. I love to read your comments. And when you engage another of differing opinions, it gives me great writing fodder for future characters. Yes--you just might end up as one of my characters. Stay true to yourself.

Quote Post 119

120 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-12 15:58:26)

Re: A great loss

The truth is that at the centre of the story in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is not Scout, Atticus or Tom; it is actually Bob Ewell 

Warning - Spoilers!
Avert your eyes the one person on the planet who has not either read this or seen the film


http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/t … D4353.ashx

Quote Post 120

Re: A great loss

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Like or dislike, those of us on here endeavoring to create a lasting piece of literature can only hope that one day our writing can inspire such a heated debate.

"The book to read is not the one which thinks for you, but the one which makes you think."

Who wrote that?

Quote Post 121

122 Reply by vern

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Like or dislike, those of us on here endeavoring to create a lasting piece of literature can only hope that one day our writing can inspire such a heated debate.

"The book to read is not the one which thinks for you, but the one which makes you think."

Who wrote that?

Since we're on the subject, my guess would be Harper Lee. But sometimes I don't really want to think, just enjoy. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 122

123 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-13 20:06:02)

Re: A great loss

vern wrote:
Dill Carver wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Like or dislike, those of us on here endeavoring to create a lasting piece of literature can only hope that one day our writing can inspire such a heated debate.

"The book to read is not the one which thinks for you, but the one which makes you think."

Who wrote that?

Since we're on the subject, my guess would be Harper Lee. But sometimes I don't really want to think, just enjoy. Take care. Vern

Not thinking is the new cool. They way of the world. Glad you are ahead of the game when it come to enjoyment over thought. Take care also. Dill

Quote Post 123

124 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/12745937_10153982473735127_684986813486491686_n.png?oh=58d41e968d32eef170cbf486429f9584&oe=574E7D43



"The task of criticism... is to install itself in the very incompleteness of the work in order to theorize it -- to explain the ideological necessity of those 'not-saids' which constitutes the very principle of its identity." ―  Terry Eagleton

“Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.”― Jessamyn West

Quote Post 124

125 Reply by vern

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:
vern wrote:
Dill Carver wrote:

"The book to read is not the one which thinks for you, but the one which makes you think."

Who wrote that?

Since we're on the subject, my guess would be Harper Lee. But sometimes I don't really want to think, just enjoy. Take care. Vern

Not thinking is the new cool. They way of the world. Glad you are ahead of the game when it come to enjoyment over thought. Take care also. Dill

I wouldn't classify thinking and enjoyment as being a competition to win or lose. Some things are to be thought about such as whether to walk out in front of a speeding car and others are to merely be enjoyed such as a damn good slice of cherry pie. Of course thinking and enjoyment don't have to be mutually exclusive as thinking can also be enjoyable. Nothing new or cool about it from my perspective; been that way since forever and a day as far as I can tell. However, I can understand that "not thinking" is definitely the "new cool" among our presidential candidates. They must really be enjoying themselves, lol. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 125