Spoiler alert:
Any number of inaccuracies are scattered through the book.... But worst of all, unforgivable in fact, is that when reference is made to the trial of Tom Robinson the guilty verdict has suddenly become an acquittal, which changes the outcome of Mockingbird completely.Tom Robinson is acquitted! The decision was made, in making "Mockingbird" out of the raw material of "Watchman," to elevate Atticus Finch into an idealized man and to lower the rest of the people of the town into racists who would convict an obviously innocent man. That's the book we were given, the book that shaped young minds for over half a century.
But life was more complex in the hidden book. Atticus wasn't so perfect and the people of the town weren't so horrible. Why aren't we receiving this new version as more optimistic?
One answer is: Because we're not just reading the book on our own. Our opinion of "Watchman" was formed by Michiko Kakutani and other advance reviewers, and these writers have concentrated on the changed character of Atticus Finch. Maybe they don't want the spoiler about Tom Robinson.
Pick the world you'd rather live in:
1. Everyone is flawed to some extent. Nobody's a big hero standing far above everyone else. But when the time comes to look at a serious case and assess the evidence, people in general can follow the instructions in the law and get to the right answer.
2. There's one man who is a paragon. He's surrounded by brutes who feel such deep-seated prejudice that even when confronted with excruciatingly obvious evidence that a man is innocent, they convict him anyway, because that's how unchangeable their stupid hatred is.
If you picked #1, lucky you. You are living in the world you prefer. If you picked #2, just go to the movies. Go to every damned movie that has a trailer that begins "In a world where (blah blah blah), one man..."
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
I am at a complete loss. This is a work of fiction. It represents the author at a point of time. Physical, emotional, moral, spiritual,time. Same author with a change in any of these or other variables, you get a different work of fiction. It does not represent reality, just one persons reality.
Read and enjoy--or not.
Very good observation. A slightly different take on it is not which world you prefer, but how do you view reality. As a gross generality, I think conservatives (and classical liberals) see it as #1 while liberals see it as #2. At least it seems that way from the current policy preferences and rhetoric.
Good take, Professor.
It also makes the ending (at least in the movie) where the sheriff insists that the baddie fell on his own knife reasonable rather than incongruous.
I haven't read the new version but I hated the old version. Atticus is an upper class twit. Boo Radley is a layabout. Bob Ewell is a scapegoat that she wrapped the Confederate flag around like a lenth of bacon soaked him in booze and set him on fire for the delectation of the north. The new version sounds like it challenges the mind of the progressives much more thoroughly. The old version was a puke fest.
The left will never forgive the old lady for harming their self righteousness. The left is all about being better than everyone but other leftists. Especially southerners.
I'm a big believer in the tragic view of life. Everybody is no damned good---or at least can act that way at times. While I may think that about other people, I don't know that I'm all that good myself. I don't believe in the perfectability of (Soviet) man---I might as well believe that the moon is made of green cheese.
A local high school teacher here who has taught, and loved "To Kill A Mockingbird" for 40 plus years feels he loves the book so much he owns it. And he had a rather amusing meltdown in an op ed piece in the local paper about "Go Set A Watchman". His views consisted mostly of "how dare they!" etc.
Get over it Buckwheat--the world is a place where bad things happen as well as good. It is what it is, and being precious about it won't fix it.
I am mystified by the degree of creepy teenager-y emotional investment that far too many people seem to have in To Kill a Mockingbird. It's a good story, and it's pretty well written, as I remember. But the recent weeping and wailing is ... disproportionate.
"But life was more complex in the hidden book. Atticus wasn't so perfect and the people of the town weren't so horrible. Why aren't we receiving this new version as more optimistic?"
I thought about this earlier and will shamelessly quote myself.
Earlier comments that are relevant to this post:
"Actually, I think the difference in Tom Robinson's verdict alone is enough to tell us that these are not the same two Atticuses.
Think about: In TKAM, Atticus sees that the system sometimes fails, no matter how hard you try. He seems to think throughout that even though it won't end well, that they can at least change things in small ways by working within the system [he mentions that the guy Scout talks down was one of the longest hold outs in the jury.] He has faith in the system, but he knows it needs to change.
In the new novel, if Robinson is acquitted -- then as far as Atticus can see in the biggest, most pivotal case: The system worked.
That's... a huge difference in jumping off points for understanding the characters -- there's no way we can reconcile these two people."
----
"If these stories take place in the same world, then the South of GSAW is a much BETTER place than in TKAM. They find Tom Robinson not guilty. If we assume that's the only difference, that means that the jury is not so racist and hate-filled that they can't see reasonable doubt.
If we assume these two books are the same, then despite Atticus's PERSONAL failings that the reviewer talks about, the South as a whole comes off a lot better in that it is A) Changing and B) Not as blinded by racism.
Without reading GSAW, I don't know if that's a fair assessment. But judging from the comments/reviews, GSAW is supposed to be a darker, less optimistic view of the South. But -- this is a South that didn't sentence an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit just because of his skin color! This South doesn't NEED an Atticus Finch to do the right thing."
Good observations.
But lit crit is now just a matter of fitting narratives into The Narrative.
So GSaW must be read to "darken" the Prog view of the South as evil. Hence new Atticus = bad gets highlighted over: town = less bad.
"1. Everyone is flawed to some extent."
In The Narrative, that depends. Sin is situational. Those who fall on the wrong side of the relevant symbolic divide are all "flawed to some extent," others not.
One-man-paragon is useful if s/he is a Prog hero accentuating flawedness of the wrong people.
So: TKaM is a useful Prog morality tale because it has the right paragon, evil Southern whites, and innocent railroaded blacks.
GSaW can be turned into a useful Prog morality tale (with a little more effort, it seems, but piece of cake for your average postmodernist) showing that, sure enough, even the white male paragon was actually evil.
A lot of liberal do-gooder types were drawn to "To Kill a Mockingbird" - for obvious reasons. Even though it wasn't my favorite book, it still was a classic American novel that touched many people. The movie with Gregory Peck and creepy Robert Duvall added to its mystique.
The book that touched me was "Catch-22". I cannot remember laughing out loud so much --even as a moody teenager - from the antics of Yossarian et al. I didn't even recognize that Joseph Heller was a leftist trying to persuade me that war was dumb. How naive I was! Like millions of others, I just simply loved the story, the characters, the "catch-line"
But then in 1994, Heller wrote a sequel, "Closing Time". Of course I was intrigued! Well, I bought it, read the blurbs, examined it for a day or 2, but ultimately discarded it, without reading it, because it was unnecessary. I didn't want to spoil the magic of Catch-22, nor the memories.
Similar advice to Harper Lee fans - don't read the sequel, it might spoil the magic.
The "To Kill a Mockingbird" movie came 13 years after "Pinky" and a full 15 years after "A Gentleman's Agreement."
When Hollywood makes a "courageous" movie with big name (expensive) stars, you know the tide turned some time ago.
" Everyone is flawed to some extent. "
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
... It was never supposed to be published.
Well, you know, except for the fact that Harper Lee tried to get it published.
Of course, once Mockingbird was published then Watchman was not supposed to be published, at least not in its current form.
Wow, Catch 22. My son, 32, has it on his favorite list. He was looking for something while in high school for a class assignment. I suggested Catch 22, we had a copy, and he read it over a weekend, could not put it down and lived on just a few hours of sleep. I too missed the political message,(or didn't care). Great characters, good story.
he read it over a weekend, could not put it down and lived on just a few hours of sleep.
I love when that happens. I teach high school, and when I tell my students about that type of thing happening, they look at me like I'm some type of space alien.
"Let the complex, be complex" That was the one tiny value I rescued out of all the deconstructive nonsense I digested while in grad school. Complexity in literature helps us work our mental muscles, question things we might not otherwise question and see things in the world around us we might not otherwise notice. Complexities add humor, surprises and, that thing my colleagues always said the liked but could never truly master, "nuance." They said at the time that they loved the "transgressive" nature of literature, but in the end, when literature was truly "transgressive" they drew back because it might even transgress over their pristine little liberal sanctuaries. It had to transgress the "right" boundaries or be reined in and made, in the end, less complex.
#1 is left-wing.
#2 is right-wing.
She wrote a left-wing book. Her editor talked her into a right-wing book.
Left-wingers love humanity, love "the people," love juries, love democracies.
Right-wingers love heroes, love people who stand up for what's right.
There is no right answer here. Yes, we all should be populists, and democrats, and trust the people. But we also need heroes who stand up for what's right and don't give a shit who knows it. You got to have both in a society.
(And Althouse is right about movies. It's one of the ironies of life that liberal Hollywood is constantly putting heroes into their narratives, almost as if they've been reading Plato or Aristotle).
The danger in being a hero is that you can become arrogant. You can become the monster you are trying to fight. When you see your life as important, you run the risk of the sin of pride.
The danger in not being a hero is that you can become lost, one of the gray people who never do anything.
All the foofaraw arises from the fact that Progressive liberals are deeply invested in their personal moral superiority, and that this sense arises from (largely misplaced) identification with the perceived heroes of the civil rights movement. They are Atticus Finch (in their own minds) and any suggestion that he was a flawed human being and that the "people" had redeeming features undermines their psychological identities and their political worldview. If the world is complex and not Manichean, then it is also whig/liberal/conservative.
Saint Croix: Left-wingers love humanity, love "the people," love juries, love democracies.
Right-wingers love heroes, love people who stand up for what's right.
I disagree. Left-wingers worship heroes: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Che, ....
So what you're saying is Scout's a money grubbing fame chasing liar who sold out her hometown to some yankee sharps? Dang.
Flawed as I am, I have never read To Kill a Mockingbird nor seen the movie. That fortunate flaw spares me the trouble of being troubled about the revisionist new book.
I'v been trying to think about why "To Kill a Mockingbird" did not resonate with me, whereas "Catch-22" did. Here's why:
I grew up in 70s and 80s on the West Coast in a working class, integrated neighborhood. Unlike these Limousine Liberals and SJWs, I actualled lived with and befriended blacks. There were no Tom Robinsons (although there were a few weirdos like Boo Radley). Like any population, some of the blacks were friendly and cool, some were not. Some reached middle-class success, some did not. Some of us stayed in touch, some did not. Some became criminals, most did not.
I guess I missed out on both the terrible oppressive South and the self-appointed liberal heroes who continually advise us that they saved us from such oppression.
I also missed out on the modern day, privileged, guilt-ridden white liberals who missed the struggle entirely, never met a black person except in college, and, without a sense of history and only thimbles full of wisdom, pretend that there is an ongoing struggle today they must fight.
No thanks - I'll just read cozy up on the couch, with a glass of wine and re-read Catch-22 again.
I read the book and saw the movie. I thought both were very good, but I can't recall very much of either the book or movie. I'm not so much impartial as disinterested. I'm glad Harper Lee figured out a way to tap her fans for another twenty million dollars, but it's a shame she didn't do it sooner. Wealth and fame are not the greatest things to have in a nursing home. Bowel and bladder continence are what one truly desires at that age.
Agree with raf @ 10:48, disagreeing with St. Crook. Moreover, it's not just about heroes for the left wingers- it's about an enlightened, elite class who can save the rest of humanity. They don't recognize that this elite group suffers from the same human failings as the rest.
I finished high school just a little too early to be subjected to TKAM. I was aware that it had become a high school must-read as my children grew up. I have never read it; in fact, never felt any urge to read it, probably because it was held in such high esteem in curricula that I was not impressed with. From one of yesterday's posts I wonder whether it was written by the writer or effectively packaged by an editor who really knew her audience. Someone else will have to decide after reading both books.
Is TKAM really more of a classic than Huckleberry Finn?
BAG @ 11:23:
Exactly.
If you picked #1, lucky you. You are living in the world you prefer.
Actually, it's even better. We live in world 1.5, where we're all brutes and there aren't any fucking paragons around to spoil our fun.
Similar advice to Harper Lee fans - don't read the sequel, it might spoil the magic.
It's not a sequel. It's an alternate universe version of the town in TKAM. Science fiction and comic books have been doing this for years.
I enjoyed the book. I did not anticipate the ending, exactly, and it was very satisfying to me. The second book has more gray, less black and white, and so does life.
Left-wingers worship heroes: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Che, ....
You might look at Mount Rushmore some time.
Or Stone Mountain!
Is TKAM really more of a classic than Huckleberry Finn?
No. But that's not a fair comparison. A book can be a lot worse than Huckleberry Finn and still be an undisputed classic.
I have to say, I'm getting really tired of the "chosen one" theme in movies.
At some level, it's a power fantasy. (Superhero movies make this level the surface, or even the only level.) The hero can be as antisocial (Iron Man, Batman) or rude (Dr. House) as he wants to be. Anyone who contradicts or speaks back to him is exposed as a villain and a hypocrite. The antisocial qualities are somehow integral to the heroism, so there's no need or even possibility for the hero to change or even to dial it down.
Atticus Finch is a genuinely admirable character (in TKAM; I haven't read the sequel), and people would do well to emulate his admirable qualities. But I wonder if some people aren't attracted to the character because they think they're better than their hometown.
"But life was more complex in the hidden book. Atticus wasn't so perfect and the people of the town weren't so horrible. Why aren't we receiving this new version as more optimistic?"
Great question. It IS much more optimistic. I avoided most of the commentary on the book prior to reading it so I could give it a fairer reading. I have to admit, about half-way through, I was a little concerned but in the end it worked out nicely.
"I grew up in 70s and 80s on the West Coast in a working class, integrated neighborhood. Unlike these Limousine Liberals and SJWs, I actualled lived with and befriended blacks. There were no Tom Robinsons (although there were a few weirdos like Boo Radley). Like any population, some of the blacks were friendly and cool, some were not. Some reached middle-class success, some did not. Some of us stayed in touch, some did not. Some became criminals, most did not."
Nice. My small West Tennessee town had mostly segregated neighborhoods but we integrated the schools when I went into the seventh grade. I was a football player and the roughly 50/50 black and white athletes quickly bonded and led the way. It was complicated but we worked it out. I was contacted by one of my black high school classmates this week, wanting restaurant recommendations in Oxford, MS where he is taking his son to a football camp. His bi-racial son. The star football player from my high school class is now the head football coach in my hometown. Black. We're all very proud. He's one of the most decent human beings I have ever met.
I now live in a state this is 37% black with a huge black underclass in the Delta and to a smaller degree, in the rest of the state. Most of the people who are reacting so hysterically toward this book, have little idea of what goes on when the two cultures are forced to rapidly accelerate the blending. They lack the insight that comes with making the sausage. That's why they can't see it as optimistic. They never get past the "triggers."
I took my nephew to Colonial Williamsburg last week. We chatted with the court clerk about the rates of conviction for various crimes. I was surprised to learn that their best estimate is that half of all felony trials for freemen resulted in acquittal (although some of those included later convictions for lesser offenses) and about a third of all felony trials for slaves also resulted in acquittals. In a typical year there would be only 8-10 hangings (the punishment for all felony convictions) for all of Virginia (all felony trials took place at the capitol).
Anyway, even slaves in pre-Revolutionary times were found not guilty sometimes.
Haven't read any comments and don't want to see spoilers, will be listening to Go Set a Watchman next, but I am reading TKAM right now, nearly done with it, and if you accept it on its own terms, it is a brilliant novel.
Sorry haters. I wanted to hate it too. Started out hating it. Yes there are a couple of scenes I might have cut, the "nigger snowman" for example, but it all works together.
@B.A.G. 8.40: Additional advice would be, don't read Catch-22 again.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा