126 Reply by njc (edited by njc 2016-03-13 22:12:59)

Re: A great loss

vern wrote:

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

Oh, Vern, you are guileless and innocent!

The essence of popular politics is feeding voters on their dreams, which you subvert to serve your schemes.  That takes plenty of conniving, and conniving is thinking bent to a specific kind of end--to making people work, and choose, and vote for what you want, not for what they want.  But it would be fatal to your schemes if you ever let the voters really see you thinking ... because it might teach them how to think

Quote Post 126

127 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-14 00:31:06)

Re: A great loss

Memphis Trace wrote:

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...
..............................................
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.

I have completed my 2nd read and have considered deeply my personal feelings upon the Atticus character and the reasons I feel the character is not worthy of the hero status and sentimentality that has been lavished upon him over the decades.

My disappointment in Atticus and the book itself remain and are heightened on the second read. I’ll explain those feelings as objectively as I can.

Atticus lives in a time and place where racism is so deeply established that is has become an accepted way of life. As a white man Atticus ‘naturally’ considers his race to be superior to the colored men, but he is seen as ‘outstanding’ because he makes a conscious effort to treat black men fairly and with politeness. (This is where the condescension feelings creep in for many people). It is like the one rider, who with compassion for his horse, doesn’t whip or spur his mount like the others do theirs. 

This is the way the Atticus character is painted by the author, and that is all well and good. I think what annoys me is the mass misconception that Atticus is such a hero for being anti-racist.

He is not anti-racist, he merely makes a point of being kind and polite to black people, which is not the same thing. He never rages against the racism that his society is built upon and he certainly doesn’t believe in equality. Can you imagine Atticus being completely non-fussed by say, the concept of his daughter having a black boyfriend, or marrying a black man?

Atticus also believes (and states) the women are inferior to men. Again, he is kind and polite to women, he encourages his daughter; but his natural position is that women are the lesser sex and even instructs his daughter upon this ‘fact’ when she questions the inequality in the jury system (that Women are deemed to be incapable of understanding and rationalising with the kind of intellect that a man can). It is like he is telling his daughter that she can be anything, and all she can be…. but only within the intellectual and capability boundaries of a female. He informs her that she must realise that she can never be equal the superior sex, the male.

These points I raised previously and my feelings upon the above are strengthened by the re-read.

However, the main thing that irks me about Atticus is not what he says and does, but what he doesn’t say or do.

The racism and sexism aside, I don’t think that Atticus ever gets to the crux of the matter (neither do I think that the book gets to it).

Incest.

Incest is the dark unmentionable undercurrent of the book. It occurs within that society, within that time and place. It is the shadowy secret that some families endure and a truth that all avoid.

Tom is so clearly not a rapist and yet Bob Ewell is publicly identified as sexually and physically abusive man. Mayella Ewell is a surrogate wife for her father and a surrogate mother to her younger siblings.

The whole trial is a sham. Mayella Ewell grasping for some power, a cry for help regarding the abuse she is subject to, a mask for the feelings that she, a white girl might have feelings for Tom, a black man.

Attius bloody well knows this. At the very least he strongly suspects it (we all do, it is alluded to throughout the book). And yet he never goes after Bob in court. We feel that Mayella is only one or two forceful questions from blurting the truth, indeed, we feel that Atticus is softening her up for the killer question;

“Isn’t it true Mayella, that it is your father who rapes you, and not Tom who raped you?”

But that question, the truth, it never comes. The incest is accepted and ignored. A massive elephant with a monkey on his back weeping at the rear of the courtroom and it is skirted around because it is too deep a subject, to vast a ‘can o worms.’

What kind of man is Atticus then? Prepared to conduct a sham trial but not to confront the truth?

He is a part of that same vile establishment that protects paedophile priests; the people in power who don’t necessarily condone the act of Priests raping children, but who do nothing about it all the same. They accept it; turn a blind eye and cover up for the perpetrators. If a paedophile priest is exposed, the first defence they drum up is that the children deserved it, the children seduced the priest.

Ask people (readers) what the novel ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ is about and they’ll all chant the mantra ‘racism.’

Ask if Atticus is a good man and they’ll cheer with a resounding unequivocal 'yes.'

As I read I’m bursting with excitement and anticipation to get to the bit where under pressure or manipulation from Atticus, Mayella Ewell confesses that her father is the actual rapist. It never comes. For me it is biggest disappointment within all of the literature I’ve ever read. From the courtroom scene on, I’m numb from the disappointment, and that is the ‘flinging the book into the hedge’ moment for me.

Harper Lee tells us; "The book to read is not the one which thinks for you, but the one which makes you think."

As Vern states in reply, actually, he prefers not to think, just enjoy.

I think that is the same apathetic state of mind that applies for most readers of this book. The charm of the precocious little girl narrator, all curly top and fight in her cute little man overalls; the upstanding white man in his respectable suit who has the courage to speak politely to a Negro fella. The good natured, wrongly accused black man who gets martyred. The vile white trash villain who get what’s a comin’.

Nobody thinks about the abuse and incest that is the very core of the story, the very core of the book. Racism is just the sideshow, the cop out, the misdirection.

I don’t know what is intentional by the author and what is not. It is either a brilliant novel or just pap, I honestly don’t know and simply can’t tell.

You see what thinking about a book does for you! Turmoil, emotional unrest and weighty theories. My advice is to follow Vern’s advice; just skim along on the surface and enjoy it like it were a cherry pie. Never, ever think about the book and above all, never, ever mention the incest.

Quote Post 127

128 Reply by vern

Re: A great loss

njc wrote:
vern wrote:

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

Oh, Vern, you are guileless and innocent!

The essence of popular politics is feeding voters on their dreams, which you subvert to serve your schemes.  That takes plenty of conniving, and conniving is thinking bent to a specific kind of end--to making people work, and choose, and vote for what you want, not for what they want.  But it would be fatal to your schemes if you ever let the voters really see you thinking ... because it might teach them how to think

Well, there's thinking and then there's thinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTqra4YSsaM

Take care. Vern

Quote Post 128

129 Reply by njc

Re: A great loss

Never criticize what someone does ... until you understand what he is trying to do.

Quote Post 129

130 Reply by Memphis Trace (edited by Memphis Trace 2016-03-14 07:39:49)

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:

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...
..............................................
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.

I have completed my 2nd read and have considered deeply my personal feelings upon the Atticus character and the reasons I feel the character is not worthy of the hero status and sentimentality that has been lavished upon him over the decades.

My disappointment in Atticus and the book itself remain and are heightened on the second read. I’ll explain those feelings as objectively as I can.

Atticus lives in a time and place where racism is so deeply established that is has become an accepted way of life. As a white man Atticus ‘naturally’ considers his race to be superior to the colored men, but he is seen as ‘outstanding’ because he makes a conscious effort to treat black men fairly and with politeness. (This is where the condescension feelings creep in for many people). It is like the one rider, who with compassion for his horse, doesn’t whip or spur his mount like the others do theirs. 

This is the way the Atticus character is painted by the author, and that is all well and good. I think what annoys me is the mass misconception that Atticus is such a hero for being anti-racist.

He is not anti-racist, he merely makes a point of being kind and polite to black people, which is not the same thing. He never rages against the racism that his society is built upon and he certainly doesn’t believe in equality. Can you imagine Atticus being completely non-fussed by say, the concept of his daughter having a black boyfriend, or marrying a black man?

Atticus also believes (and states) the women are inferior to men. Again, he is kind and polite to women, he encourages his daughter; but his natural position is that women are the lesser sex and even instructs his daughter upon this ‘fact’ when she questions the inequality in the jury system (that Women are deemed to be incapable of understanding and rationalising with the kind of intellect that a man can). It is like he is telling his daughter that she can be anything, and all she can be…. but only within the intellectual and capability boundaries of a female. He informs her that she must realise that she can never be equal the superior sex, the male.

These points I raised previously and my feelings upon the above are strengthened by the re-read.

However, the main thing that irks me about Atticus is not what he says and does, but what he doesn’t say or do.

The racism and sexism aside, I don’t think that Atticus ever gets to the crux of the matter (neither do I think that the book gets to it).

Incest.

Incest is the dark unmentionable undercurrent of the book. It occurs within that society, within that time and place. It is the shadowy secret that some families endure and a truth that all avoid.

Tom is so clearly not a rapist and yet Bob Ewell is publicly identified as sexually and physically abusive man. Mayella Ewell is a surrogate wife for her father and a surrogate mother to her younger siblings.

The whole trial is a sham. Mayella Ewell grasping for some power, a cry for help regarding the abuse she is subject to, a mask for the feelings that she, a white girl might have feelings for Tom, a black man.

Attius bloody well knows this. At the very least he strongly suspects it (we all do, it is alluded to throughout the book). And yet he never goes after Bob in court. We feel that Mayella is only one or two forceful questions from blurting the truth, indeed, we feel that Atticus is softening her up for the killer question;

“Isn’t it true Mayella, that it is your father who rapes you, and not Tom who raped you?”

But that question, the truth, it never comes. The incest is accepted and ignored. A massive elephant with a monkey on his back weeping at the rear of the courtroom and it is skirted around because it is too deep a subject, to vast a ‘can o worms.’

What kind of man is Atticus then? Prepared to conduct a sham trial but not to confront the truth?

He is a part of that same vile establishment that protects paedophile priests; the people in power who don’t necessarily condone the act of Priests raping children, but who do nothing about it all the same. They accept it; turn a blind eye and cover up for the perpetrators. If a paedophile priest is exposed, the first defence they drum up is that the children deserved it, the children seduced the priest.

Ask people (readers) what the novel ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ is about and they’ll all chant the mantra ‘racism.’

Ask if Atticus is a good man and they’ll cheer with a resounding unequivocal 'yes.'

As I read I’m bursting with excitement and anticipation to get to the bit where under pressure or manipulation from Atticus, Mayella Ewell confesses that her father is the actual rapist. It never comes. For me it is biggest disappointment within all of the literature I’ve ever read. From the courtroom scene on, I’m numb from the disappointment, and that is the ‘flinging the book into the hedge’ moment for me.

Harper Lee tells us; "The book to read is not the one which thinks for you, but the one which makes you think."

As Vern states in reply, actually, he prefers not to think, just enjoy.

I think that is the same apathetic state of mind that applies for most readers of this book. The charm of the precocious little girl narrator, all curly top and fight in her cute little man overalls; the upstanding white man in his respectable suit who has the courage to speak politely to a Negro fella. The good natured, wrongly accused black man who gets martyred. The vile white trash villain who get what’s a comin’.

Nobody thinks about the abuse and incest that is the very core of the story, the very core of the book. Racism is just the sideshow, the cop out, the misdirection.

I don’t know what is intentional by the author and what is not. It is either a brilliant novel or just pap, I honestly don’t know and simply can’t tell.

You see what thinking about a book does for you! Turmoil, emotional unrest and weighty theories. My advice is to follow Vern’s advice; just skim along on the surface and enjoy it like it were a cherry pie. Never, ever think about the book and above all, never, ever mention the incest.

Dill,

I really appreciate this.

Before I set to a third time on To Kill a Mockingbird, to do your "weighty theories" justice I will read them again—in the hopes that they will become so embedded that I don't get immersed in the story and fail to see that Atticus is a closet racist. You obviously saw from the beginning, as a 15-year old who threw the book in the hedge, what Lee was hiding in Scout's misperceptions of her father's courage and honor.

We know from Go Set a Watchman, written as part of the original story (but published 65 years later), that indeed Atticus was a closet racist. Word on the street is that Lee became convinced by her editors back in 1960 to take out the Go Set a Watchman parts so that Yankees and white Southern folks like me looking for a white hero would applaud loudly and buy the book. It is the kind of marketing of the message that fools Americans to be sold on our political choices.

With the benefit of your critical thinking and distance from the situation as a lodestar, I will work at better understanding what Lee was thinking as she wrote this story.

It will do me good to come to understand that Lee did not sell out her principles in To Kill a Mockingbird, but that I just missed that she was hiding Atticus in plain sight, abeit behind a cute, curly haired 6-year old, with freckles on her nose.

Now that Lee is dead, I will treat her like Huck Finn treats dead folks: After supper she got out her book and learned me about Moses and the Bulrushers, and I was in a sweat to find out all about him; but by and by she let it out that Moses had been dead a considerable long time; so then I didn't care no more about him, because I don't take no stock in dead people.

Memphis

Quote Post 130

Re: A great loss

j p lundstrom wrote:

A respectful pause for the death of a gifted human being.

But come on, folks! She wrote ONE book! And while it was a great book in its day, it reads dated and b-o-r-i-n-g nowadays. I'd wager a guess that it even seems condescending to some people. How insulting in modern times to say that a whole race is unable to solve their problems without the benevolence of one white man!

She said what she had to say, and it struck a note, but that's all she had. There remain plenty of other problems of the human condition that still need tackling, and other talented writers are working on them.

I must say I agree with you while also admitting I never read the book but rather watched the awful movie twice, once as a child and again in adulthood. There is an inverse correlation between  the quality of a novel and  the quality of a film made from it, so I guess the book is probably very well written, but the story/theme today is a mere reminder of the days when "liberalism" was sincere and relevant, but the negro civil rights movement ended in 1965, and having a movement for equal rights turned into a movement for equal stuff, opening healed wounds of unfair treatment of one race against another does nothing but harm to today's reader, politicized to the intolerant left, who is not bored by the dated and largely irrelevant nature of the book. Sinclair Lewis, anyone? Naturalism by way of lying about things.

Quote Post 131

Re: A great loss

njc wrote:
vern wrote:

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

Oh, Vern, you are guileless and innocent!

The essence of popular politics is feeding voters on their dreams, which you subvert to serve your schemes.  That takes plenty of conniving, and conniving is thinking bent to a specific kind of end--to making people work, and choose, and vote for what you want, not for what they want.  But it would be fatal to your schemes if you ever let the voters really see you thinking ... because it might teach them how to think

But then there's Winston Churchill, in the wilderness on the Soviet threat, then on the Nazi threat, then on the Soviet threat again.  And there's the railroad-lobbyist lawyer Abe Lincoln on the idea that the federal government has the supreme and indissoluble right for taxation in order to transfer massive wealth from the people to the railway companies. I think both were very clear on their thinking to the voter and transparently decisive in their actions toward their goals.

Quote Post 132

133 Reply by njc

Re: A great loss

Thank you, Charles.  The key word is transparently.

Quote Post 133

134 Reply by Charles_F_Bell (edited by Charles_F_Bell 2016-03-14 09:01:44)

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?

Only "true" in the sophistry of Carver's implicit solipsism - when in reality "any definition" (which is of a word created for a concept) is true to the extent it can be demonstrated to correspond to the nature of things.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

Quote Post 134

135 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

Unrelated to your excellent points above, Dill, I was reading & found this quote, which I thought I'd share. Not as a means to refute what has been said here. Just as a means to complement it:

- We are a nation that worships the frontier tradition, and our heroes are those who champion justice through violent retaliation against injustice. It is not simple to adopt the credo that moral force has as much strength and virtue as the capacity to return a physical blow; or to refrain from hitting back requires more will and bravery than the automatic reflexes of defense.

Yet there is something in the American ethos that responds to the strength of moral force. I am reminded of the popular and widely respected novel and film To Kill a Mockingbird. Atticus Finch, a white southern lawyer, confronts a group of his neighbors who have become a lynch-crazy mob, seeking the life of his Negro client. Finch, armed with nothing more lethal than a lawbook, disperses the mob with the force of his moral courage, aided by his small daughter, who, innocently calling the would-be lynchers by name, reminds them that they are individual men, not a pack of beasts.

To the Negro of 1963, as to Atticus Finch, it had become obvious that nonviolence could symbolize the gold badge of heroism rather than the white feather of cowardice. -

- Martin Luther King, Jr. Why We Can't Wait, 1963.

Quote Post 135

136 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-14 13:53:41)

Re: A great loss

corra wrote:

Unrelated to your excellent points above, Dill, I was reading & found this quote, which I thought I'd share. Not as a means to refute what has been said here. Just as a means to complement it:

- We are a nation that worships the frontier tradition, and our heroes are those who champion justice through violent retaliation against injustice. It is not simple to adopt the credo that moral force has as much strength and virtue as the capacity to return a physical blow; or to refrain from hitting back requires more will and bravery than the automatic reflexes of defense.

Yet there is something in the American ethos that responds to the strength of moral force. I am reminded of the popular and widely respected novel and film To Kill a Mockingbird. Atticus Finch, a white southern lawyer, confronts a group of his neighbors who have become a lynch-crazy mob, seeking the life of his Negro client. Finch, armed with nothing more lethal than a lawbook, disperses the mob with the force of his moral courage, aided by his small daughter, who, innocently calling the would-be lynchers by name, reminds them that they are individual men, not a pack of beasts.

To the Negro of 1963, as to Atticus Finch, it had become obvious that nonviolence could symbolize the gold badge of heroism rather than the white feather of cowardice. -
- Martin Luther King, Jr. Why We Can't Wait, 1963.

Yes, Atticus is definitely a hero. He is willing to go all the way in order to pit his version of right against wrong and that is to be applauded. However, I firmly believe that Atticus (and scout) would behave the exact same way if the mob were trying to lynch an innocent white man or woman; an Asian or native American Indian; a Mexican or a dog (especially lassie).... or anyone else.

In this case the proposed victim happens to be an innocent black man and what most people, including Dr. King fail to observe is that Atticus is not acting because Tom is a negro, he is acting because he is on the side of right against wrong. He is helping an unfairly threatened person, period.

None of this heroism changes the fact that Atticus feels that Tom and Dr. King are members of what he naturally considers to be an inferior race just as he considers you and Scout to be inferior in terms of intellect when compared to a man.

Quote Post 136

Re: A great loss

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
njc wrote:
Dill Carver wrote:

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?

Only "true" in the sophistry of Carver's implicit solipsism - when in reality "any definition" (which is of a word created for a concept) is true to the extent it can be demonstrated to correspond to the nature of things.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

The only true in Bell's end, is that it is.

Quote Post 137

Re: A great loss

Memphis Trace wrote:


...We know from Go Set a Watchman, written as part of the original story (but published 65 years later), that indeed Atticus was a closet racist. Word on the street is that Lee became convinced by her editors back in 1960 to take out the Go Set a Watchman parts so that Yankees and white Southern folks like me looking for a white hero would applaud loudly and buy the book. It is the kind of marketing of the message that fools Americans to be sold on our political choices.....


That makes sense of it. Editors influence. I bet there was a great worry that Atticus might appear a communist.
Too controversial and the book becomes a hard to stomach read in a classic niche. Reign in the nasty bits and promote the provocative fluff that dances to the tune of the social political agenda of the day and you have a runaway success of the mainstream pulpy variety. Atticus is doing for the civil right movement, what Harry Potter is doing for child wizards.

I haven’t read Watchman yet, but I feel that I need to.

Quote Post 138

Re: A great loss

Memphis Trace wrote:


...We know from Go Set a Watchman, written as part of the original story (but published 65 years later), that indeed Atticus was a closet racist....


I never thought Atticus was a closet racist. I thought he was an overt racist, conditioned and institutionalized by the history of the time and place he lived in. He couldn't help it, the world was the way it was. He was a good man, kinder and more polite than most. He was more enlightened than most folk at the time and truly believed that the law should not discriminate between races. Therein lay one of the baffling Atticus character enigmas that stopped me buying into the character: he was strongly opposed to inequalities in law (between men, but not women), but promoted inequalities in life.

That to me is weird and 'out of character'. Where is his true conviction? I read novels and stories all the time and when you come across an incomplete or inconsistent character it is like a bad or unconvincing actor, it just doesn't ring true. Atticus is either a poorly written character or a very well written bi-polar sufferer.

Quote Post 139

140 Reply by njc (edited by njc 2016-03-14 17:37:29)

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:

Tom is so clearly not a rapist and yet Bob Ewell is publicly identified as sexually and physically abusive man. Mayella Ewell is a surrogate wife for her father and a surrogate mother to her younger siblings.

The whole trial is a sham. Mayella Ewell grasping for some power, a cry for help regarding the abuse she is subject to, a mask for the feelings that she, a white girl might have feelings for Tom, a black man.

Attius bloody well knows this. At the very least he strongly suspects it (we all do, it is alluded to throughout the book). And yet he never goes after Bob in court. We feel that Mayella is only one or two forceful questions from blurting the truth, indeed, we feel that Atticus is softening her up for the killer question;

“Isn’t it true Mayella, that it is your father who rapes you, and not Tom who raped you?”

But that question, the truth, it never comes. The incest is accepted and ignored. A massive elephant with a monkey on his back weeping at the rear of the courtroom and it is skirted around because it is too deep a subject, to vast a ‘can o worms.’

What kind of man is Atticus then? Prepared to conduct a sham trial but not to confront the truth?

He is a part of that same vile establishment that protects paedophile priests; the people in power who don’t necessarily condone the act of Priests raping children, but who do nothing about it all the same. They accept it; turn a blind eye and cover up for the perpetrators. If a paedophile priest is exposed, the first defence they drum up is that the children deserved it, the children seduced the priest.

Atticus Finch isn't a policeman or a prosecutor.  He's a defense attorney, and his job is to get his client acquitted when all of society believes him guilty.

Much less is he a social crusader, and that's good because in that time and place, any attempt to raise the specter of incest about a white man will face tremendous denial.  And one tool of denial is scapegoating.  If that jury, and that town and the county and the whole state, are asked to choose between believing* a white man guilty of incest on his daughter or believing* a black man guilty of a rape he couldn't commit, they will unfailingly believe the black man guilty, evidence be damned, on the strength of their own unchallenged beliefs on the innate differences of character.

As terrible as Mayella's situation is, conviction of Tom Robinson will only create another villian.  The only hope for her is to first acquit Tom Robinson, in such a way that the people will actually believe he could be innocent.   Only then will they be willing to look for another answer, and maybe push their blinders aside.

When you see it this way, you wonder whether Mayella might just have accused Tom and described the alleged rape in a way that she knew could be defended against.  (Look at The Hammer of God, in which the murder tries to place the blame "on the one person who could not suffer.")

And the attack on Scout is meant to hurt the one man who knows, sure in his heart and without denial or excuse, of Bob Ewell's life of evil.

Did Lee mean to write this in?  I'm pretty sure of it.  If not, she created a plot with the complexity and ambiguity to allow it.  But I'm convinced she meant it that way.  And even if she didn't plan it that way, she saw that it came out that way; that's why she said, "... which makes you think."

edit: "believing" isn't quite an adequate word.  For some of the people it is a question of belief; for others it is a question admitting privately to what they know to be true or of admitting publicly to that same knowledge.  Such is the nature of denial.

edit: I imagine that Harper Lee was, at least for a while, appalled that To Kill a Mockingbird was considered appropriate for such low grades in school.

Quote Post 140

141 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:

Can you imagine Atticus being completely non-fussed by say, the concept of his daughter having a black boyfriend, or marrying a black man?

Absolutely not.

Dill Carver wrote:

In this case the proposed victim happens to be an innocent black man and what most people, including Dr. King fail to observe is that Atticus is not acting because Tom is a negro, he is acting because he is on the side of right against wrong. He is helping an unfairly threatened person, period.

I agree with you.

Dill Carver wrote:

... just as he considers you and Scout to be inferior in terms of intellect when compared to a man.

A couple scholars (sorry, this isn't school, so I didn't bother citing critics when I was reading yesterday!) have suggested that the passage where Atticus remarks on women & juries may have been sarcasm. He speaks to Scout as an intelligent equal throughout, using legal terminology with her as if she is an adult. They suggest that the novel seems to criticise (through Scout's viewpoint) the ideal of Southern womanhood as something infantilizing and silly that inspires women to waves of insipidness. (Example, the women headed by Aunt Alexandra near the end of the novel meet for tea to discuss the plight of an African tribe, then contemplate the way their servants have become a bit unruly since Tom's trial. Meanwhile they have no interest at all in the Ewells of their own neighborhood or the close-to-home plight of Mayella.)

Stephanie Crawford is another example.

When referencing the moment when Atticus mocks women on juries, they note that he grins right after, and that Scout agrees with him, which suggests the two are exchanging a joke on the insipidity of the ideal "lady" in the South (a social structure) -- not women in general. They also note that one of the few times Atticus loses his cool is when Alexandra starts lecturing him about turning Scout into a lady. Which he refuses to do.

I've not revisited these passages myself yet. I'll be watching for signs of sexism during my reread later this year. Too much on my syllabus right now to give it attention. I could only read those articles yesterday because I had a rare day off, and naturally I did self-assigned homework. tongue

Just sharing. x


This is what I read yesterday:

- Ernst, Julia L. "Women In Litigation Literature: The Exoneration Of Mayella Ewell In To Kill A Mockingbird." Akron Law Review 47.(2015): 1019. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.

- Hakala, Laura. "Scouting for a Tomboy: Gender-Bending Behaviors in Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird." Digital Commons at Georgia Southern. Georgia Southern University, 2010. Web. 2016.

- Halpern, Iris. "Rape, Incest, And Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird: On Alabama's Legal Construction Of Gender And Sexuality In The Context Of Racial Subordination." Columbia Journal Of Gender & Law 18.3 (2009): 743-806. Web. (I only read the part about Mayella. Half of the article is about law code in the Alabama of the era, which (sorry) I found dull.) :-)

- Jones, Carolyn. "Atticus Finch And The Mad Dog: Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird."Critical Insights: To Kill A Mockingbird (2010): 145-164. Literary Reference Center. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.

- Murray, Jennifer. "More Than One Way To (Mis)Read A "Mockingbird." Southern Literary Journal 43.1 (2010): 75-91.Academic Search Complete. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.

- Phelps, Teresa Godwin. "The Margins Of Maycomb: A Rereading Of To Kill A Mockingbird."Critical Insights: To Kill A Mockingbird (2010): 165-186. Literary Reference Center. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.

- Powell, Burnele V. “A Reaction: 'Stand Up, Your Father [A Lawyer] Is Passing.'” Michigan Law Review 97.6 (1999): 1373–1375. Web.

- Shackelford, Dean. "The Female Voice In To Kill A Mockingbird: Narrative Strategies In Film And Novel." Critical Insights: To Kill A Mockingbird (2010): 222-236. Literary Reference Center. Web. 13 Mar. 2016.

-Stone, Randolph N.. “Atticus Finch, in Context”. Michigan Law Review 97.6 (1999): 1378–1381. Web.

Quote Post 141

142 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:

Therein lay one of the baffling Atticus character enigmas that stopped me buying into the character: he was strongly opposed to inequalities in law (between men, but not women), but promoted inequalities in life.

Which is interesting, since Miss Maude tells Scout he is exactly the same in the courtroom as he is at home.

I read somewhere that Lee based Atticus on her own father and that he was, if I recall, a segregationist.

Quote Post 142

143 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

http://media1.shmoop.com/media/covers/literature/Atticus_Comic.png

Quote Post 143

144 Reply by njc (edited by njc 2016-03-14 17:39:17)

Re: A great loss

No need to delete.  I will correct the error and will take full blame for it.  (To get the error completely out, you might want to delete the quote of the erroneous quote.)

Quote Post 144

145 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

I actually did find a source for my remarks on Atticus's comments on women & juries:

- Atticus subverts gender conventions because of his innovative ideas about women. Atticus believes that women should have opportunities, as he demonstrates when he teaches both Jem and Scout to read. Laura Fine disagrees, maintaining that fathers in To Kill a Mockingbird “represent the oppressive patriarchal structure” (“Gender Conflicts” 123). Atticus delivers one statement that suggests this mindset: when he explains why women cannot serve on juries, he remarks, “I guess it’s to protect our frail ladies from sordid cases like Tom’s. Besides . . . I doubt if we’d ever get a complete case tried—the ladies’d be interrupting to ask questions” (234). Though this statement seems suspect, I believe that Atticus speaks with a note of sarcasm, especially since he grins after expressing it. The grin suggests that he mocks the idea that women are “frail” and should be “protected” from society’s evils. While Scout agrees with her father, commenting, “Perhaps our forefathers were wise” (234), she only makes this remark after imagining Mrs. Dubose on a jury. Scout’s response indicates that stereotypical women—such as Aunt Alexandra and her hypocritical missionary society—would impede legal proceedings. Perhaps unconventional women with more of an unbiased mind, like Scout, would benefit juries. -

Found on page 37 of Scouting for a Tomboy, by Laura Hakala located here.

Quote Post 145

146 Reply by Memphis Trace (edited by Memphis Trace 2016-03-15 05:44:40)

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:


...We know from Go Set a Watchman, written as part of the original story (but published 65 years later), that indeed Atticus was a closet racist....


I never thought Atticus was a closet racist. I thought he was an overt racist, conditioned and institutionalized by the history of the time and place he lived in. He couldn't help it, the world was the way it was. He was a good man, kinder and more polite than most. He was more enlightened than most folk at the time and truly believed that the law should not discriminate between races. Therein lay one of the baffling Atticus character enigmas that stopped me buying into the character: he was strongly opposed to inequalities in law (between men, but not women), but promoted inequalities in life.

That to me is weird and 'out of character'. Where is his true conviction? I read novels and stories all the time and when you come across an incomplete or inconsistent character it is like a bad or unconvincing actor, it just doesn't ring true. Atticus is either a poorly written character or a very well written bi-polar sufferer.

When I read To Kill a Mockingbird again, I will look for any hints of Atticus's overt racisim. I don't remember any. I will also look for anything in the text that shows he approved of the law being applied unequally to women.

If, without a lot of trouble to yourself, you can pull out examples of this overt racism and sexism, I will carefully consider it when I read it in context.

Memphis

Quote Post 146

147 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:

I haven’t read Watchman yet, but I feel that I need to.

It's interesting to read as a writer, since it was the rejected manuscript, from which she pulled To Kill a Mockingbird.

Quote Post 147

148 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2016-03-14 19:04:14)

Re: A great loss

Memphis Trace wrote:

When I read To Kill a Mockingbird again, I will look for any hints of overt Atticus's racisim. I don't remember any. I will also look for anything in the text that shows he approved of the law being applied unequally to women.

If, without a lot of trouble to yourself, you can pull out examples of this overt racism and sexism, I will carefully consider it when I read it in context.

Memphis

Okay I’ll get digging, but please understand that my understanding of racism is;

A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

Some people think that racism requires horse whippin’ lynching and a touch of genocide to qualify. 

I don’t ever feel within the book that Atticus regards himself to equal to, or the same as the coloured folk. I feel that he believes himself superior.

Earlier within the thread I asked; “Can you imagine Atticus being completely non-fussed by say, the concept of his daughter taking up a black boyfriend (of good character), or marrying a black man (of good character)?

He’s a cardboard cut-out character, so we’ll never know. But if you imagine that Atticus would be nothing but pleased for his daughter’s happiness, then he’s no racist.

I personally think that he’d take umbrage with such a situation and I'll try to extract the quotes that lead me to that conclusion.

Look out for Braxton Bragg Underwood, the newspaper owner. He openly dislikes black people and yet publicly (vociferously) defends Tom’s right to a fair trial. What’s going on there? Another one who thinks that all men are equal under the law, but are definitely not equal in daily life. I seem to be the only one who thinks this duality is skewed morality.

BTW: My definition of male sexism is the belief that men are naturally superior to women and thus should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. I shall be claiming sexism based upon that description.

Cheers

Quote Post 148

149 Reply by corra

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:

Look out for Braxton Bragg Underwood, the newspaper owner. He openly dislikes black people and yet publicly (vociferously) defends Tom’s right to a fair trial.

I'd forgotten about him!

Dill Carver wrote:

I seem to be the only one who thinks this duality is skewed morality.

Nope, I agree with you. I'm not, in this thread, defending Atticus, by the way. Though I concede I can't seem to unlike him yet, for reasons I shared offline and which are utterly fallible and personal to me, I agree that he is problematic. I shared the criticism above not to disprove your points, but to offer some context from current criticism which I haven't personally confirmed.

I was reading earlier that Alexandra tries to instill "ladyhood" in Scout while simultaneously violating its rules. This sort of subtle contradiction within the text is (I think) the basis for "thinking" Lee anticipated in readers. Like the parallel of Atticus with Underwood.

I think you're an incredibly deep reader and I appreciate you unearthing this stuff. xx

Quote Post 149

150 Reply by Memphis Trace (edited by Memphis Trace 2016-03-14 20:03:15)

Re: A great loss

Dill Carver wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:

When I read To Kill a Mockingbird again, I will look for any hints of overt Atticus's racisim. I don't remember any. I will also look for anything in the text that shows he approved of the law being applied unequally to women.

If, without a lot of trouble to yourself, you can pull out examples of this overt racism and sexism, I will carefully consider it when I read it in context.

Memphis

Okay I’ll get digging, but please understand that my understanding of racism is;

A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

I am guessing you will find instances where Atticus speaks of whites being in superior circumstances to blacks. I do not consider that racisim. I think that is what he meant when he said it is 10 times worse for a white man to cheat a black man than it is to cheat a white man.

Some people think that racism requires horse whippin’ lynching and a touch of genocide to qualify.

I think racism requires that action be taken against the race one feels superior to. For instance, I don't think acts of charity toward a race because you feel your circumstances are superior to theirs would qualify as racisim. 

I don’t ever feel within the book that Atticus regards himself to equal to, or the same as the coloured folk. I feel that he believes himself superior.

I felt his acts in To Kill a Mockingbird were those of a man who regarded himself as having intellectual and financial and institutional advantages superior to the blacks.

Earlier within the thread I asked; “Can you imagine Atticus being completely non-fussed by say, the concept of his daughter taking up a black boyfriend (of good character), or marrying a black man (of good character)?

He’s a cardboard cut-out character, so we’ll never know. But if you imagine that Atticus would be nothing but pleased for his daughter’s happiness, then he’s no racist.

I personally think that he’d take umbrage with such a situation and I'll try to extract the quotes that lead me to that conclusion.

I cannot imagine Atticus approving of Scout taking up with a black boyfriend. I never really considered this while reading To Kill a Mockingbird, perhaps because I never considered Scout as anything other than a 6-year old tomboy.

Look out for Braxton Bragg Underwood, the newspaper owner. He openly dislikes black people and yet publicly (vociferously) defends Tom’s right to a fair trial. What’s going on there? Another one who thinks that all men are equal under the law, but are definitely not equal in daily life. I seem to be the only one who thinks this duality is skewed morality.

I will take a close look at Underwood. But right off the top of my head, I would say that unless he acts in some negative way towards blacks, I would not consider openly disliking them to be racist.

BTW: My definition of male sexism is the belief that men are naturally superior to women and thus should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. I shall be claiming sexism based upon that description.

Again, I will be looking for acts by Atticus that demonstrate his "belief that men are naturally superior to women" and should dominate important areas of political, economic, and social life. For instance, I wouldn't convict a man of robbery if he believed he should rob a bank but never did.

Cheers

Memphis

Quote Post 150