Search options (Page 2 of 38)

Thanks very much for that suggestion!! I'm adding it to my list, as well as several more by Trudeau. I love primary sources, so that particularly appeals.

On the topic of Atlanta, I can't recall if I've pointed out this book to you? It was edited by one of my professors -- a scholar on Atlanta during the ACW. It's the journal of a British-born bookseller living in Atlanta during Sherman's campaign for Georgia. I love a first-hand account. I own a copy. Too bad I can't lend it.

"I do not write for such dull elves
As have not a great deal of ingenuity themselves."

- Jane Austen, January 29, 1813.

"I have likewise read one of Miss Austen’s works—Emma—read it with interest and with just the right degree of admiration which the Miss Austen herself would have thought sensible and suitable. Anything like warmth or enthusiasm—anything energetic, poignant, heartfelt, is utterly out of place in commending these works: all such demonstration the authoress would have met with a well-bred sneer, would have calmly scorned as outré and extravagant. She does her business of delineating the surface of the lives of genteel English people curiously well. There is a Chinese fidelity, a miniature delicacy in the painting. She ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound. The passions are perfectly unknown to her; she rejects even a speaking acquaintance with that stormy sisterhood. Even to the feelings she vouchsafes no more than an occasional graceful but distant recognition—too frequent converse with them would ruffle the smooth elegance of her progress. Her business is not half so much with the human heart as with the human eyes, mouth, hands, and feet. What sees keenly, speaks aptly, moves flexibly, it suits her to study; but what throbs fast and full, though hidden, what the blood rushed through, what is the unseen seat of life and the sentient target of death—this Miss Austen ignores. . . . Jane Austen was a complete and most sensible lady, but a very incomplete, and rather insensible (not senseless) woman. If this is heresy, I cannot help it." 

- Charlotte Brontë

"Women have become so highly educated... that nothing should surprise us nowadays, except happy marriages." —  Oscar Wilde

"I am sick to death of cleverness. Everybody is clever nowadays. You can't go anywhere without meeting clever people. The thing has become an absolute public nuisance." —  Oscar Wilde

"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea." —  Mahatma Gandhi

“He had just about enough intelligence to open his mouth when he wanted to eat, but certainly no more.” ― P.G. Wodehouse

"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." — Jane Austen

"No time is ours but the present... and that is so fleeting, we can hardly be said to exist." - Eliza Lucas, 1722-1793.

(Beginning The Indigo Girl by Natasha Boyd.)

A history major acquaintance of mine once lectured me on my love of Gone with the Wind. (He made an argument similar to your argument about To Kill a Mockingbird.) It came to blows, & naturally I won. When he limped to shake my hand & concede defeat, he stumblingly suggested I try T.S. Stribling's The Store for a more honest presentation of the South during Reconstruction. It's set in 1880s Alabama, & was written during the same time To Kill a Mockingbird is set. Like GWTW & TKAM, & it also won the Pulitzer. It's on my list.

I don't see cardboard cut-outs in To Kill a Mockingbird. I see people. Real people, with flaws and strengths and contradictions. Calpurnia is certainly no more a complex character than Mammy in Gone with the Wind, but each is supposed to be seen through the perspective of another character (Scout, and Scarlett), and of course neither Scout nor Scarlett would see the full woman. It's interesting (to me) that seventy years is supposed to have passed between Scarlett and Scout, and still they see their respective Calpurnias as maternal figures without a prior history. Though (it's been a while, but I feel that Lee does give us some of Calpurnia's history? That might be in Go Set a Watchman. I can't remember.) Anyway, I'm not sure it's a BAD book because of this. My feeling is that Lee wanted to be honest by showing what Scout would have seen & not seen. I could be way off there, but the fact that she doesn't tell everything doesn't mean she (the author) didn't see it. I could definitely be convinced otherwise, but that's where I currently stand on that point.

Atticus is THE contradiction, for me. I feel that the fact that he is both heroic (in ways) and backward (in ways), and that we see him through Scout's jaded perspective -- is a VERY complicated and honest depiction of American heroism.

And sorry, Doc! I love the story too. I love Scout, Dill, Boo, and Jem. I like the earthy Southern feel -- the natural delivery, the sense of innocence before a fall. I love the writing style. I love that a big story is filtered through the flawed perspective of a little girl, who still views her own father as perfect & isn't aware at first that her hometown is more than what she's been taught -- a set of families divided by class and conduct -- a powder keg of fury awaiting a reason to become violent and develop the brain of a collective mob. That's one of my favorite things about it: Scout sees familiar faces she knows become strangers. It was written for 1960s America, as in, here's a little girl looking you people squarely in the eye, saying, "You are my neighbors. How can you become so violent?" Yet she does something similar with Boo. "Our happy little small Southern town seems idyllic, but look what we, any one of us, can become." I don't think Lee intended the novel to be the final word on the topic. I think instead she was writing ONE SENTENCE within a conversation she hoped would continue. I love that the novel came out just as the Civil Rights Movement in America was beginning. I appreciate that: the historical value of that. I appreciate that Lee gives us characters to take apart and assess.

The novel is a favorite of mine -- a salty, good bit of story-telling about a small Southern town living within a horrific time in Southern American history.

But -- I agree with you about its canonization in America. I don't think To Kill a Mockingbird should be touted as THE American book, nor should it be read without thinking. It is one of many perspectives on the American story, and I agree with you that it shouldn't be read blindly. At its time, it was revolutionary. At its time, it couldn't speak bluntly. Not if it hoped to be read.

Today it seems outdated in places. Not as a novel, for I still hold that Lee wanted to paint racism honestly -- that she wanted to SHOW that it can hide itself in plain sight. But if people read it without seeing that -- yes. It shouldn't be held up as some kind of last word on America. It's been almost sixty years. Others are able to speak now. People who actually experienced what Harper Lee tried to write about. People who live/d the racism Lee tried to bring to light. They should be in the American canon. They should be speaking in schools.

I think To Kill a Mockingbird could easily stand alongside other titles from the Civil Rights era (such as the work of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.) & make a rich discussion. What does Harper Lee want to accomplish with this book? What held her back? What does she get right for you, the reader? What does she get wrong? Does today's America see it? Why not?

That could be valuable way to read the novel. I also think a good hard look at Atticus could be valuable. I agree with your remarks on his character. I agree it's strange most people don't see it. I didn't see it on my first read, & that's ABSOLUTELY worth a good shred. I think it's dangerous to simply read him as a hero and go on with our merry lives. He should be dissected, & his place in American hearts should be questioned. That (for me) is why this is still a good book to have in schools. It goes back to our discussion (somewhere above) about Confederate monuments. Do we want to tear down Atticus & hide him away, or do we want to leave him up so we can learn from him?

To that point, I read an article by Alice Randall the other day about TKAM's place in schools, which I wanted to share with you. (Because she appears to see a lot of what you're arguing.) Here she argues that teaching To Kill a Mockingbird in schools requires a perceptive teacher. And here she argues that there is still something in To Kill a Mockingbird that may be worth teaching. Randall wrote the one sequel to Gone with the Wind I've actually liked: The Wind Done Gone. I find her fair but skeptical. She seems to question the place of Gone with the Wind in American hearts, rather than the novel itself. The legacy as opposed to the book. She does something similar with To Kill a Mockingbird -- suggesting we take a realistic look at it, rather than a romantic look. I feel that's what you're doing as well, & I appreciate your skepticism. I also appreciate your comments on Mayella Ewell in prior discussions.

I've read that one three times! I think it's quite imaginative! Hope you enjoy it.

We're four-armed.

We're still taking Dill's arm though, right?

I had no idea I could speak so eloquently of my own defeat. I stand corrected.

Possibly! They're well within their rights, of course, to nail down a script, but they may miss out on an excellent work that way. I imagine they also quickly screen out bad manuscripts filled with remarkably clunky dialogue tags. The one doesn't naturally default to the other, however.