I forgot how deep that book was when I read it in school. Mostly I fixated on the injustice in the courtroom and the one scene where Atticus has to shoot (I think) a rabid animal.
Love the subscription call to action 😂. I may need to change mine to something about needing groceries so subscribe.
Great article! Coming to terms with the grey not only of the world "out there" but our own parents and ourselves is difficult but necessary to claim agency in the world. I'm working on something similar with the relationship between justice, mercy, and accountability. Tricky stuff all around. Sometimes I think there's enough applicable content on substack to make a whole curriculum for history, ethics, civics, etc!
I never read the book. But I liked the movie in spite of the fact that I tend not to like dramas. Probably because of Gregory Peck in the lead role.
I can see how someone could make different analogies from Jesus words, “Let the dead bury the dead.“ You probably already know that Jesus said that to one of his disciples as a way of saying, “Stop making excuses for not following me.“
I read this in school as a teenager, and for me a question that was never sufficiently answered was 'how much agency did Arthur Radley have?' I could imagine Arthur being mentally retarded, to the point where we would say things like "mentally he is about 6". But the notion that Atticus Finch and Sheriff Tate could conclude that they knew what was best for Arthur Radley without discussing things with him has always sat very badly with me. And I thought that it came across as 'we are going to save Arthur -- and the Finch family -- from a fuss' whereas I thought that there was a very real chance that if things went to trial Arthur would be convicted of murder, or sent to an asylum. But those didn't seem to be the things that Sheriff Tate was worried about, though it is hard to know for certain since plain speaking didn't seem to feature here.
I doubt he'd have been convicted of murder in 1935. In 2024, yes. In the rural south in 1935, saving two children from a knife-wielding man who's made public threats to get revenge on their father would be more likely to result in social shame against the sheriff for having arrested him at all. Source: me. Grew up in the rural south, read this book as a kid, and discussed it with every old person I could find. (It was one of my near-autistic-obsessions for about six months.)
Not to disagree with your background and knowledge, but 12 year old me had just read about a terrible miscarriage of justice in that town and was quite willing to believe that they could be capable of another one.
Holly I doubt there would be a conviction in 2024, unless there were some racial angle. The Daniel Penny case doesn’t even get charged absent the combination of race and the leftist DA. And even in one of the most left-leaning districts in the US, they couldn’t get a unanimous jury on manslaughter.
Someone struggling over a knife with a person intent on murdering two children gets off.
It’s a pretty clear cut case of lawful defense of others. I think the chances of a conviction would be quite low. It’s very possible he wouldn’t even have been indicted. In fact, leaving aside the cover story, I am not sure the police officer who investigated (the Sheriff) had an obligation to make an arrest.
Mockingbird is by far one of my favorite novels ever written. There are a couple of things that have always stood out to me:
1. After Scout walks Boo Radley back to his home and says goodbye forever, she turns around and suddenly sees the world the way Boo saw it. She can see all the escapades she had with her brother from where Boo, in his broken and childlike way, had been watching them for years. She doesn't understand him completely, of course, but the novel presents the idea that if you can just see something from the point of view of another, there is power to that.
This is, I believe, Atticus's great gift. He can even see things from the point of view of George Ewell. It doesn't make Ewell any better a human being, but Atticus can feel sorrow and compassion for the awfulness. It's also powerful to me that Atticus can feel the compassion and not let himself be manipulated. Atticus knows his defense of Tom Robinson will destroy the Ewells, he doesn't relish it, but he still goes through his defense with full force. Compassion doesn't mean let bad people get away with it.
2. I feel like the case against Tom Robinson is one of the most vivid descriptions of how badly tribalism makes us go wrong. Nobody likes the Ewells. They are horrid people. The entire town knows how awful they are. And when the truth clearly comes out in the trial, the town's full disgust is unleashed. Though Tom Robinson is a black man, I always felt that the town mostly respected him. He worked hard. He did good things. If you asked the average person whether they liked Tom Robinson or George Ewell better, I got the feeling they'd all say Robinson (with the qualifier that he was a Negro).
And he was innocent of the rape accusation. Obviously innocent. Everybody knew he was innocent. I never interpreted of the "guilty" verdict as a statement that the town didn't believe Tom Robinson. Rather, the town was powerless to declare him innocent because of the strict, unwritten but always accepted code that whenever a dispute came between a black man and a white man, the whites had to side with the white man--even when that white man is despised and repugnant. The only way to let Robinson go free was to break this code, and the community simply couldn't do it. It is their great sin in the novel.
Frank Overton, the actor who played Sheriff Tate in the movie, was Colony Leader Sandoval in the Star Trek episode “This Side of Paradise.” The one where the plant spores made Spock all emotional. He never really broke through as a Big Time Actor (Unlike Boo Radley), but he did do a good job on To Kill a Mockingbird. I do love the way he delivered the final line.
Hard to believe anyone "of a certain age" could say "I never read the book". Even in Australia it was on the syllabus for ever. I think I under-rate it because of that over-familiarity, and not much liking Gregory Peck! And, as about the most compromising and accommodating person IRL, maybe I never saw this decision as particularly a struggle (then, or now) - "Get over yourself, Atticus". Life's full of imperfect solutions. It's almost the definition of "life".
But you make a good case, and anyone that can bring TKAM alive for me after all these years is doing something right. Thanks.
Yes, I've read it. I should read it again and actually form some thoughts. I read it for a bit of escapism when I was dangerously depressed, and I don't remember having any strong reaction, which just means I was numb.
I had three thoughts on reading it. As I’m sure you know, she submitted this book and her editor told her the story mentioned in a flashback of the trial was the story people really wanted. So she wrote Mockingbird and never returned to Watchman.
First, it was definitely a draft. It needed at least one more pass to be really gelled as a novel. Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad she chose to publish it. But as a historical artifact. Not a polished novel.
Second, I thought it was fascinating that she changed the result. In the flashback, Atticus won the trial! I guess she thought that ultimately wasn’t sustainable.
Third, if Harper Lee had written 30 novels, or even 13, she’d have won a Nobel Prize in literature and she’d be up there in the pantheon with Faulkner and Hemingway.
Thanks Holly
I forgot how deep that book was when I read it in school. Mostly I fixated on the injustice in the courtroom and the one scene where Atticus has to shoot (I think) a rabid animal.
Love the subscription call to action 😂. I may need to change mine to something about needing groceries so subscribe.
Tim Johnson, a rabid dog. And yes, LOL.
Great article! Coming to terms with the grey not only of the world "out there" but our own parents and ourselves is difficult but necessary to claim agency in the world. I'm working on something similar with the relationship between justice, mercy, and accountability. Tricky stuff all around. Sometimes I think there's enough applicable content on substack to make a whole curriculum for history, ethics, civics, etc!
Thanks. And yeah, there really is. If I were a homeschooling parent I’d for sure make a course out of it.
I never read the book. But I liked the movie in spite of the fact that I tend not to like dramas. Probably because of Gregory Peck in the lead role.
I can see how someone could make different analogies from Jesus words, “Let the dead bury the dead.“ You probably already know that Jesus said that to one of his disciples as a way of saying, “Stop making excuses for not following me.“
I read this in school as a teenager, and for me a question that was never sufficiently answered was 'how much agency did Arthur Radley have?' I could imagine Arthur being mentally retarded, to the point where we would say things like "mentally he is about 6". But the notion that Atticus Finch and Sheriff Tate could conclude that they knew what was best for Arthur Radley without discussing things with him has always sat very badly with me. And I thought that it came across as 'we are going to save Arthur -- and the Finch family -- from a fuss' whereas I thought that there was a very real chance that if things went to trial Arthur would be convicted of murder, or sent to an asylum. But those didn't seem to be the things that Sheriff Tate was worried about, though it is hard to know for certain since plain speaking didn't seem to feature here.
I doubt he'd have been convicted of murder in 1935. In 2024, yes. In the rural south in 1935, saving two children from a knife-wielding man who's made public threats to get revenge on their father would be more likely to result in social shame against the sheriff for having arrested him at all. Source: me. Grew up in the rural south, read this book as a kid, and discussed it with every old person I could find. (It was one of my near-autistic-obsessions for about six months.)
Not to disagree with your background and knowledge, but 12 year old me had just read about a terrible miscarriage of justice in that town and was quite willing to believe that they could be capable of another one.
Makes sense!
Holly I doubt there would be a conviction in 2024, unless there were some racial angle. The Daniel Penny case doesn’t even get charged absent the combination of race and the leftist DA. And even in one of the most left-leaning districts in the US, they couldn’t get a unanimous jury on manslaughter.
Someone struggling over a knife with a person intent on murdering two children gets off.
It’s a pretty clear cut case of lawful defense of others. I think the chances of a conviction would be quite low. It’s very possible he wouldn’t even have been indicted. In fact, leaving aside the cover story, I am not sure the police officer who investigated (the Sheriff) had an obligation to make an arrest.
Mockingbird is by far one of my favorite novels ever written. There are a couple of things that have always stood out to me:
1. After Scout walks Boo Radley back to his home and says goodbye forever, she turns around and suddenly sees the world the way Boo saw it. She can see all the escapades she had with her brother from where Boo, in his broken and childlike way, had been watching them for years. She doesn't understand him completely, of course, but the novel presents the idea that if you can just see something from the point of view of another, there is power to that.
This is, I believe, Atticus's great gift. He can even see things from the point of view of George Ewell. It doesn't make Ewell any better a human being, but Atticus can feel sorrow and compassion for the awfulness. It's also powerful to me that Atticus can feel the compassion and not let himself be manipulated. Atticus knows his defense of Tom Robinson will destroy the Ewells, he doesn't relish it, but he still goes through his defense with full force. Compassion doesn't mean let bad people get away with it.
2. I feel like the case against Tom Robinson is one of the most vivid descriptions of how badly tribalism makes us go wrong. Nobody likes the Ewells. They are horrid people. The entire town knows how awful they are. And when the truth clearly comes out in the trial, the town's full disgust is unleashed. Though Tom Robinson is a black man, I always felt that the town mostly respected him. He worked hard. He did good things. If you asked the average person whether they liked Tom Robinson or George Ewell better, I got the feeling they'd all say Robinson (with the qualifier that he was a Negro).
And he was innocent of the rape accusation. Obviously innocent. Everybody knew he was innocent. I never interpreted of the "guilty" verdict as a statement that the town didn't believe Tom Robinson. Rather, the town was powerless to declare him innocent because of the strict, unwritten but always accepted code that whenever a dispute came between a black man and a white man, the whites had to side with the white man--even when that white man is despised and repugnant. The only way to let Robinson go free was to break this code, and the community simply couldn't do it. It is their great sin in the novel.
Frank Overton, the actor who played Sheriff Tate in the movie, was Colony Leader Sandoval in the Star Trek episode “This Side of Paradise.” The one where the plant spores made Spock all emotional. He never really broke through as a Big Time Actor (Unlike Boo Radley), but he did do a good job on To Kill a Mockingbird. I do love the way he delivered the final line.
Hard to believe anyone "of a certain age" could say "I never read the book". Even in Australia it was on the syllabus for ever. I think I under-rate it because of that over-familiarity, and not much liking Gregory Peck! And, as about the most compromising and accommodating person IRL, maybe I never saw this decision as particularly a struggle (then, or now) - "Get over yourself, Atticus". Life's full of imperfect solutions. It's almost the definition of "life".
But you make a good case, and anyone that can bring TKAM alive for me after all these years is doing something right. Thanks.
Holly, I know I’ve commented like nine times on this post, but have you read “Go Set a Watchman?” If so, do you have thoughts?
Yes, I've read it. I should read it again and actually form some thoughts. I read it for a bit of escapism when I was dangerously depressed, and I don't remember having any strong reaction, which just means I was numb.
I had three thoughts on reading it. As I’m sure you know, she submitted this book and her editor told her the story mentioned in a flashback of the trial was the story people really wanted. So she wrote Mockingbird and never returned to Watchman.
First, it was definitely a draft. It needed at least one more pass to be really gelled as a novel. Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad she chose to publish it. But as a historical artifact. Not a polished novel.
Second, I thought it was fascinating that she changed the result. In the flashback, Atticus won the trial! I guess she thought that ultimately wasn’t sustainable.
Third, if Harper Lee had written 30 novels, or even 13, she’d have won a Nobel Prize in literature and she’d be up there in the pantheon with Faulkner and Hemingway.