Book Nook Cafe discussion

JanOMalleycat wrote: "Mild spoilers to page 198 or so. . .
*
*
*


I'm to the part where they're making the movie. I saw the movie of To Kill a Mockingbird when I was a kid, long before I read the book. So Gregory Peck ..."

Maybe I have no imagination but I can't IMAGINE anyone else but Gregory Peck in that role. I thought he was perfect....Just the right touch. I haven't read the book in a while but I also feel that Atticus is definitely the central character...

I don't know if I could imagine anyone else as Atticus but learning that she had pictured Spencer Tracy kind of threw me.

Barbara

Barbara said: " I don't know if I could imagine anyone else as Atticus but learning that she had pictured Spencer Tracy kind of threw me."

Isn't it funny to realize that Nelle's mental image was so different from ours. Even with all the evidence to the contrary, I still tend to believe as I read that I'm understanding the story as the author intended. It's always odd to realize they had something different in mind.

Jan O'Cat

JanOMalleycat wrote: "Mild spoilers to page 198 or so. . .
*
*
*

But (don't shoot me for this) I'm not much of a Tracy fan. He would be too bombastic in the role, I think. With Peck it's his voice that makes Atticus who he is and his quiet dignity."

I'm not much of a Tracy fan either. Frankly, he didn't seem much of an actor to me but i know he has many fans who found him outstanding. I think he would have been too old for the role of Atticus, in addition to what i consider his poor acting.

Peck seemed ideal to me for that same quiet dignity you mentioned, Jan. Even James Stewart (my mind went to him as another example of dignity) would have been too over-the-top. It needed the gentle touch of Peck. When Peck was good, he was perfect. When miscast (here i'm thinking The Yearling), it was a bit uncomfortable to watch.

deborah, who was trying to think of an actor working today who could handle the role. I'd go with a lesser known name, such as Bill Pullman, toned down a touch, at this point.

Deborah signed: "who was trying to think of an actor working today who could handle the role. I'd go with a lesser known name, such as Bill Pullman, toned down a touch, at this point."

Ugh, my mind won't even go there, Deborah. Gregory Peck IS Atticus Finch.

Still, of anyone off the top of my head, Bill Pullman is the closest

Jan O'Cat

I don't know Bill Pullman. And my mind just went to Sam Waterson, but earlier in his career, he is getting too old.

Barbara

I just returned from a week in Colorado, and did not take along Mockingbird. I'll return to reading once laundry is done, and I attend my high school class reunion tonight.

A quick thought about TKAM the film - which I showed for years and years and years. I'm not so sure it was Peck making Atticus the centerpiece of the film, but rather a decision to emphasize the Tom Robinson story with its theme of racial discrimination/social justice. In 1962 this was a very timely topic; Atticus is the voice of fairness - as well as a loving father and teacher.

Barbara, he hasn't had big parts, so it's no wonder Pullman may have slipped your notice. He played the President in Independence Day. The first film where he registered with me was While You Were Sleeping with Sandra Bullock. Here's a list of his movies...http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000597/

Sherry, welcome home! I hope you had a great vacation--did you get much drawing done?

Sherry's thought about TKAM as a movie made me think that IF they wanted to remake it, they could create a film closer to the way it was written, with the children's stories more of the focus. Personally, i found the children's parts nice but, as noted, in the early '60s it was the social justice issue which cried to be addressed immediately.

deborah

Sherry said: "A quick thought about TKAM the film - which I showed for years and years and years. I'm not so sure it was Peck making Atticus the centerpiece of the film, but rather a decision to emphasize the Tom Robinson story with its theme of racial discrimination/social justice. In 1962 this was a very timely topic; Atticus is the voice of fairness - as well as a loving father and teacher."

Welcome home, Sherry!

Did you ever have any parents object to students reading TKAM or seeing the movie?

The Tom Robinson story and Atticus' part in it is what makes the book memorable and great. As I think I said above, regardless of the page count of Atticus' story vs. the children's, the trial is the center of the story. Without it, TKAM would be nothing more than a possibly cloying recount of anecdotes of life in the Depression South.

The children's part is what draws one into the story, and provides the setting. It establishes that, with the exception of Mr. Ewell, the characters aren't evil. They're part of a social milieu that Atticus challenges by defending Tom Robinson.

I was surprised to see commentary on Peck pushing for changes in the script and/or editing as I've always thought of TKAM as being an instance where the movie is a very good representation of the book.

Jan O'Cat

JanOMalleycat wrote: "I was surprised to see commentary on Peck pushing for changes in the script and/or editing as I've always thought of TKAM as being an instance where the movie is a very good representation of the book."

Same here, Jan. DH & i listened to TKAM while traveling to & from Florida 3 or 4 years ago. While still on that vacation, we happened to see most of the movie on tv. We were both impressed that so much fit into the movie and still maintained quality.

I have been wondering about something, regarding the Clutter family & the book In Cold Blood. It's been almost 40 years since i read the book, so i may have forgotten how the family was portrayed. I recall nothing negative about the family, thinking they were fairly typical, if strict (which often was typical then). Shields (& others) indicate Capote did that intentionally, pretty much wanting to depict the family as "good."

Then i checked online to see what the remaining Clutter family was up to. They've been defending their family, stating Capote & Lee didn't really interview many people who knew the Clutters to find out what kind of people they were, focusing instead on the crime & their (the author's) own impressions. Given the fact that Capote's original stated intention was to see how the murders impacted a small town, the end product was different.

Don't get me wrong, i have no problems with the way things turned out. My ponderings are about Lee. What if she had written the book? Her notes about the family seemed to indicate psychological deductions based on what she was seeing. And, as Shields noted, Capote pretty much veered away from portraying the family in a negative way.

I just keep wondering what Lee would have done with the impressions shared with us. Her notes seem to indicate many conclusions without a lot of proof to back them up. Frankly, i was surprised. I realize we can only speculate but i wondered if these thoughts even crossed the minds of anyone else here? From what we've read about Lee thus far, this aspect of her seems unexpected. What did i miss?

deborah

Deborah said: "to see what the remaining Clutter family was up to. They've been defending their family, stating Capote & Lee didn't really interview many people who knew the Clutters to find out what kind of people they were, focusing instead on the crime & their (the author's) own impressions."

Deborah, I took it that Nelle did make a lot of assumptions that may or may not have been correct--how will we ever know? As is usual in such things, the assumptions said as much about her as about the Clutter family. Naturally she'd be sensitive to a story of a family with a mother who has mental health problems and the effects of that on the rest of the family. So I can't say it surprised me that she was sensitive to the indications and may have examined the Clutter family with some prejudice.

Had Lee written the book, I suppose it might have reflected her interests and concerns even as In Cold Blood reflected Capote's. He started off to write a book about the impact of a heinous "urban" murder on a small rural town. But once he got to know the murders, his direction changed. Did he originally see it as the disorganization and "evil" of urban life reaching its tentacles into rural America? I'm not sure if I've read that somewhere or it's my own idea. If that, or something like that, was his intention, I would think that getting to know the murderers personally would derail the large themes he started out with.

I would also think that witnessing the executions, which I imagine to be a horrific experience, would lead him to have more sympathy for Smith and Hickok, less for the Clutters whom he never met. In my memory the book is decidedly more about the murderers than the victims or the town.
Lee might have written a story more evenly divided between the life of the family and the crime. Actually, having read the latter part of Mockingbird, I was left wondering if she had it in her to write anything outside of her direct experience, so who knows what she might have done? The one story she apparently pursued, of the serial killer for insurance, had that satisfying thump of retribution at the end. I don't think the story of the Clutters, with retribution provided years later, and by the state, would have the same appeal for her.

And if she pursued what she believed was going on in the Clutter household, how would she avoid blaming the victims?

I've reread In Cold Blood in the last couple of years and I wouldn't change a thing. I do remember some suggestion of the mother's depression, but it wasn't emphasized. I can understand Capote's theme in setting up the Clutters as unqualifiedly "good" people to whom a hideous thing happened.

I also wonder if at the time readers were ready for works in which there's any ambiguity about the characters who are "good." There was precedent for the villains to have many facets including vulnerability or other sympathetic qualities, but had we heard before of seeming ordinary families who had messier lives behind closed doors?

I am thinking particularly about a time, perhaps the late 70's, when stories began to emerge of ordinary, middle- and upper-middle-class families who were concealing physical and sexual abuse. Disclaimer here: I'm not suggesting there were these issues in the Clutter family. I'm only positing my memory of being fairly shocked by the idea that the family next door could have some pretty hideous things going on without anyone knowing.

Mental illness, even mild mental illness, was a taboo topic when Capote was writing. I can well see multiple reasons for him to avoid "cluttering" the family's story with real-life facts that wouldn't have fit with his schematic.

Jan O'Cat

JanOMalleycat wrote: "I'm only positing my memory of being fairly shocked by the idea that the family next door could have some pretty hideous things going on without anyone knowing."

How true. We were amazed & disturbed that domestic violence would be a part of middle class homes/families. Excellent point. Because i haven't read many novels from that time (or even the '50s), i can't say whether or not the "seams were shown" back then. Somehow it seems less likely in nonfiction.



JanOMalleycat wrote: " I can well see multiple reasons for him to avoid "cluttering" the family's story with real-life facts that wouldn't have fit with his schematic.

I agree. The way he put it was probably the best way. To put a more human but less "typical" face on the family would have undermined one intention--that this could have happened to anyone.

deborah

--Did you ever have any parents object to students reading TKAM or seeing the movie?--

No, Jan, not once. Though I did lots of prepping for the "N" word in the book. Certainly Lee despises the word, and says that people who use it are "trash."

Have any of you read Malcolm Gladwell's look at Atticus as an example of 1930's Southern liberalism, an essay in the current New Yorker? If you don't subscribe you can read it online here:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/20...

One of the things that has bothered me about this book is the author's use of the word Negro. While, of course, this was the common usage at that time, he uses it in his narrative not just in the conversation which would not have bothered me.

Barbara

Barbara, until you mentioned it, i didn't notice his use of Negro but you are right, there is something odd about that in this day & age.

I finished the book last night. I learned more about Lee than i knew previously but i think a good magazine article could have told me as much as this book. There was FAR too much recapping the novel & restating things mentioned earlier in the book.

Most disappointing is that i didn't close the book with a good sense of what Lee has been doing since 1970. A few larger things are mentioned but i am more curious about her daily life in Monroeville. Does she grocery shop, participate in church activities, fund raise, read books? How does she spend her day? The fact the place is full of books could be an indicator, however, she probably receives tons of books free, in hopes of blurbs.

And was anyone else a bit disconcerted by his quickly suggesting & dropping the idea that Lee & Crain had a sort of chaste affair? Why not mention it earlier when, for example, he was by her bed when she awoke from surgery? And why not at least mention that Williams died in '77? Sloppy.

I felt the same way by the quick dismissal of Alice's claim of the second novel was stolen. One mention? No discussion?

Maybe i expected too much but i resent authors doing this. It's the second time in the last 12 months this has happened. If you are going to state it, rather than allow readers to draw their own conclusions, i feel s/he should elaborate and get opinions from others.

One thing i did like was reading that Lee & Steinbeck were seen squirreled away discussing books. How i'd love to be a fly on THAT wall!

deborah

Deborah said: "And was anyone else a bit disconcerted by his quickly suggesting & dropping the idea that Lee & Crain had a sort of chaste affair? Why not mention it earlier when, for example, he was by her bed when she awoke from surgery? And why not at least mention that Williams died in '77? Sloppy.

I felt the same way by the quick dismissal of Alice's claim of the second novel was stolen. One mention? No discussion? "

Deborah, my twin, these exact mentions stuck in my craw too. I thought the former was an attempt to insert some scandal into the account of Lee's life, completely superfluous and, as you say, too late without a prior mention.

The second I also wanted more exploration or at least speculation. My impression by that point in the book was that Lee had such trouble writing after TKAM that I doubted that there was a complete manuscript. She was kept busy and distracted by the obligations of fame. She was spending more time in Monroeville where she had family and community obligations and didn't have the support for her literary self that she'd enjoyed in New York. Perhaps she only had one book in her. So I wondered if the stolen manuscript were a story designed to get everyone off her back. If it was stolen, why has it never appeared? Is someone harboring it, waiting for her death? Did the thief die or have some other misfortune leaving it lost?

See, if I can get a quick paragraph speculating about this incident, why couldn't Shields? Didn't the police or neighbors in Monroeville have any opinions?

And, yes, perhaps my favorite line in the book was the one depicting Steinbeck and Lee huddled discussing books.

Jan O'Cat

"So I wondered if the stolen manuscript were a story designed to get everyone off her back."

That is how I took it Jan. It was so obviously silly and unbelievable.

As to her daily life -- I could picture the part of her life that she spent in later years in NYC. It said she rode the bus all the time and didn't like taxis. That sounded so true to me. After all, why should she spend money on a taxi -- that wouldn't be her style. The fact that she frequented museums and took the bus all the time made me wonder if we had ever been in the same place at the same time (I lived in the neighborhood described.)and I didn't know it. Also that she liked to go to used book stores -- the Strand? It truly freaks me out.

Oh, additional comment -- during the book Shields keeps referring to her as "tall" yet at the end he says she is 5'2". Huh?

Barbara

madrano: but i think a good magazine article could have told me as much as this book.
----------------------------------
bio.com has a nice 2 1/2 page article on her that I think covers everything one needs to know.
---------------------------------------
barbara: during the book Shields keeps referring to her as "tall" yet at the end he says she is 5'2". Huh?
-----------------------------------------
Confirms my comments in my earlier posts about sloppy research/ editing. Though as one who is also vertically challenged at 5'2", I like to think of the notion that one would consider me tall. :)

I still have the book out from the library, but had to start two other library books that I can't renew. And the start for our read, Tender at the Bone is soon approaching. I don't know if I will pick Mockingbird up again. The first 100 pages left me cold. And the posts here confirm my feelings on it.

Last night I just finished a really engrossing read, Columbine. [image error]
I'll comment more in the appropriate thread. And I'm in the middle of Idiot America. An acerbic, witty, and funny book.

Barbara said: "The fact that she frequented museums and took the bus all the time made me wonder if we had ever been in the same place at the same time (I lived in the neighborhood described.)and I didn't know it."

What a cool thought, Barbara! But if I were you, I bet I'd be driving myself crazy trying to think if I'd ever seen her.

This is the beauty of living in Norman OK instead of NYC. If I've seen a celebrity, I knew it.

Jan O'Cat

JanOMalleycat wrote: "See, if I can get a quick paragraph speculating about this incident, why couldn't Shields? Didn't the police or neighbors in Monroeville have any opinions?"

Exactly! We have done no research & can come up with more thought than Shields shared. Disappointing. I'm relieved to know i'm not alone, folks!

Barbara, i love the idea that you might have rubbed shoulders with Lee. I'm so out of the loop that i could have talked with a celebrity & wouldn't know it. DD used to email us every time she saw a celebrity on the street. Then it became so expected that she stopped.

We went to a restaurant this week in the town of Eustace, Texas. On their wall were celebrity photos. The only one i recognized was Ruth Buzzi and that was from years ago. Here there aren't even sidewalks where we'd have a chance to see celebrities. :-)

deborah

What a cool thought, Barbara! But if I were you, I bet I'd be driving myself crazy trying to think if I'd ever seen her.


Oh Jan -- you've got that right. I'm usually pretty observant and I know when I have seen someone but no way did I know what she looked like -- so it wasn't about being in NYC for me. It sounds as if she looked like a lot of other older women with white or gray hair wearing exercize clothes with a bag over her shoulders. Pretty usual in the neighborhood.


Barbara

I finally finished the book, and don't have much to add. I also was uncomfortable with the hit of an affair - dropped and then abandoned. And I also noted the scene with Lee and Steinbeck huddled together talking about books. Overall I wasn't too impressed by Mockingbird, but I'm not sorry I read it. Too bad I didn't get to see this info. when I was teaching, though.

Sherry summarized: "Overall I wasn't too impressed by Mockingbird, but I'm not sorry I read it. "

That's just the way I feel, Sherry.

Jan O'Cat